/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>7129

>It is not the case that at the moment of making decisions I see the whole spectrum of possibilities, but rather irrevocably I choose the one that is the closest to my devotion, determined in turn by external factors.

But you have made a mistake, for it is by the external factors that you judge, but the act of judging itself is internal and within your own control. You do care that the beggar is actually a rich man, but it is within your power to not care, and this cannot be taken away. Further, we should not rest philosophy on science, but science must conform to sound philosophy. Science has no voice. To the extent it can speak, it can only speak of particular facts. It measured a certain activity in the brain at a certain time, it measured a certain signal in a certain nerve at a previous time. Beyond this science can say nothing, because science has no mechanism to justify saying more.

>>7129

Once again you don't understand what free will is. Free will is not the power to know everything and make decisions on it. It is simply the power to act on your own decisions.

To your second point, what you are describing is a reflex. Your reflexes also come from your brain, just not a conscious part of it. You can train your reflexes to do what you want. It does not disprove free will at all. Reflexes don't overpower your free will, they predict it and act accordingly.

Both. Free will by the grace of God determines his ends

Determined by who? Determined by whose presumably free will? If by determinism you just mean that all things are a logical consequence of another, we have free will so long as "free" isn't defined as breaking the physical, consequential laws of the universe.

>some metaphysical external force pushes people towards a certain "good" direction, a "maximum potential" that is the best self one can be

>people choose to ignore these "signs", wander from the path

>the longer one strays from the path, the further one distances themself from their maximum potential

>these signs become larger, more detrimental, more punishing the further one strays from it

>once the person makes choices to wander so far from the path, a cataclysmic life event occurs

>people can learn from this and work back to the "good" path towards their goal or not

>people who do are able to get back on the "good" path relatively quickly and with few (if any) true obstacles

>people who do not are permanently stuck outside of this good path and will face nothing but hardships for the rest of their lives

>many/most people balance bad and good to the point of never understanding their true goal, but never seeing cataclysm

>people generally "know" what they "should do" to stay on the path, but very few (if any) people ever truly reach that max potential

I don't believe in determinism in the sense of Greek Fates, but there is a given purpose. Free will does only harm. People know this and try to do what they can to cast it away in attempts to rid themselves of suffering and responsibility for the potential failures of their actions.

Maybe you're just surrounded by assholes for some reason? As for why, they know they're miserable. They want other to be too, so they're not alone. Preferably they'll find someone to be more miserable than them so they can pretend to be superior.

>How do I tolerate this kind of behaviour?

Don't. Cut off as many assholes as you can and interact as little as possible with the ones you can't get away from or find a way to deal with them.

We are social, hierarchical apes, and so must conform to get on and even survive. Quite simple really.

Most people are arseholes.

That includes you and me.

I'm also in my mid-20's, I haven't been diagnosed with clinical autism, but that was one of the ideas they tried to bounce off me en route to deciding I had "Ptsd".

I think, people don't really have innate personalities as such; only formative experiences and situations that they are placed in.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that the human soul is "Tabula Rasa", but before experience, there's only that a-priori framework presumably instilled by your genome.

If you put a person in a situation where they suffer intensely, then they will act like an asshole.

Modern society basically gives you two options; toe the line or eat shit and die.

When an adult comes to terms with this, it can ruin their outlook forever., especially considering that we all seem to be inescapably trapped therein.

I myself have been cast out by my family, but I also found that cutting them out of my heart was the best thing to do.

They did not want me, so what need had I for them?

Being close to them made me miserable, but so did being parted from them; I had to come to terms with the absurdity of this situation, and opted to embrace separateness.

Now my mother tries to send me money every christmas or birthday, and I tell her no, and that her money is dirty, because she won't even look at or talk to me.

One day she'll probably stop trying; then I'll know I've won, and that her heart is broken.

I guess there isn't really any such thing as an asshole; just bad winners and sore losers.

>>7161

Take the hypothetical state of being perfectly circular. If an object is always varying in it's property of circularity then it is by definition not continuing in a state of perfect circularity. There is only one perfect state with regard to being circular. Now take the human property of being in a state of perfect bliss. If a man is always varying in his state of blissfulness then he by definition cannot be in a continuing state of perfect blissfulness. There is only one state with regard to perfect blissfulness.

>>7163

Why should I accept your presupposition that human states are like geometric shapes? Until you explain why, or present an alternative explanation, you've given no reason not to believe there are indeed differing states of perfect bliss.

>>7164

It seems pretty intuitive to me that bliss only varies along one dimension; more, or less blissful. So it seems that the state of perfect bliss could only be a state of maximal blissfulness. So for a man to be continually perfect with regard to bliss he would have to remain in that one state of maximal bliss.

>>7184

To power

>>6904

why?

>>7056

>fucked up way of showing it

>the perfect justice is screwy cause I can't comprehend perfection

Hmmmm

>>7101

Sorry I was having a moment that day

I can only endure my 'friends' in short doses. One of them makes a clicking sound when he eats and I'd become homicidal if I had to live with that. Fuck, I have misophonia, so why would I ever want to live with anyone?

>>6955

>Fags condemning faggotry

>rare

Pick one

t.fag

>>6760

Hegel would never think that though

>>7008

>implies someone was a faggot

>implies someone important who is dead was a faggot

>does is without evidence

>is a self-confessed faggot

Not suprised. Faggots always love to say everybody else, specialy hostorical figures, are /were faggots. I guess it makes you feel normal or something like that.

>>6204

"How do you know?" is a bigger problem, you idiot. You can sit and focus only on what's before you, declaring it to be all that is, but you're only doing so to stave the existential dread you experience, because you're weak and stupid, from questioning otherwise.

>>7054

What about Christian Solipsism?

"You mean the Christ that exists in my mind because what I think is the only real possibility"

Hegel wins again

>>7090

Atheism is an exclusively christian phenomena. It never arised out of any other religion, and we have a mistake to thank for that back in the 1400s, when nominalism was allowed to win over realism.

>>6950

What Peterson was saying in that first link is similar to that people often say one thing but do another. Which, I hope, is obvious to you. But what he was saying was a bit deeper. That often times people think they believe one thing but their actions show that they do not.

What this man has done is spend a lifetime probing into the unconscious mind looking for answers. He acknowledges that he is also as faulty as everyone else and so instead of proclaiming that he believes what he believes like all you other fools who don't understand that you have a subconscious, he instead analysis his actions to see what it is he really believes. This is why he always says that he acts as though God exists instead of saying that he believes that God exists.

You are just not smart enough to understand him.

>>7128

He has spent a lifetime being religious. You're not smart enough to realize he's deluded like all religitards, and also attacks progressive causes for the sweet Prager University money.

>>7128

>You are just not smart enough to understand him.

You are just too invested in him to see how full of shit he is,

>>7106

God can change the nature of Man.

Nothing else.

The nature of mortality is plasticity and chaos. A man's nature changes innumerable times throughout his life, all in pursuit of an archetypal goal. The human pupa transforming as it matures.

>>7106

what is nature?

>>7115

>nature of a man

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Man

>>7117

nonhuman animals have knowledge as well

'Conception' don't real.

You can define things, then go check if they exist in reality.

You can look at reality, and try to define what you see there.

Neither of these things are conception. The first kind of definition is fully arbitrary. The second kind is almost equally arbitrary, despite making every effort to avoid that fate.

>>4613

this

It's pretty cool hearing Bertrand Russel rip apart Nietzsche's philosophy.

https://youtu.be/HGDZcifLpdA

jan stachniuk, i think

>>4769

I'm Christian myself but never would say the same thing.

Your will is your heart. It is the spirit of oneself.

To me will is ambition, a drive

>>7069

I'm a compatibilist like Aquinas was. Apparently that's an unpopular stance.

what most people call "consciounes"

>>7083

>>7078

While you're at it you could just read the Bible, and see that it is pretty explicit that the church serves this function.

>>7084

>>7083

All of it?

Even the esoteric cycle specific and exclusive to secularism? And the heroic arch type modifying alongside the cycle change?

If my idea is not unique, but still self discovered, do I still have hope for developing it?

>>7085

>Even the esoteric cycle specific and exclusive to secularism? And the heroic arch type modifying alongside the cycle change?

I'm pretty sure its been articulated before. Even if it hasn't been you would still have to make a distinction between the institution of the church, and the ideal of the Church. Take your specific institution, and ask yourself "Has my church ever had a legitimate scandal, or failing?" The answer will most certainly be yes, and this is sufficient to begin identifying your cycles within the institution of that church. You could still say that these cycles tend upwards with regard to the church, and downwards with regard to the world. You could then differentiate between the two by way of the Church's archetypal heroic figure, Christ, and how conformity to Him manifests itself differently depending on where you are in the cycle.

>If my idea is not unique, but still self discovered, do I still have hope for developing it?

Sure you can develop it, but as I said, this has all been explored before and you can pick it up in the bargain dvds for like $8.99.

>>7087

I use the Catholic church. Anything outside it would be considered "secular", paganism, judaism, buddhism, atheism, etc etc.

>>7083

St. Pol Pol will save us from the urban demiurge

>>7029

Well then you'll love it here because here we barely discuss philosophy to begin with.

>>7033 (bah-dum-chinged)

What's the secret molyjew?

>>7041

Reading my book on UPB and donating :^)

dude isn't thomism also st aquinas school of thought? thomism's ethics is the growth of many virtues in self perfection, a moral good could berate another human's moral good indifferently, however there is no indication that morality is ontologized in relations like later ethics, especially nietzsche's genealogy (how do we design an open-ended ethics?), or in the case of kant there is the earlier ontology which is about universalism, and then later on deontologized ethics (which purport rules rather than an universalism.)

>>7009

Well I've noticed how does one unite Thomism with Spinozaism? (used to be really against the latter)

>>7017

https://procreo.blogspot.com/2010/06/spinoza-and-aquinas-on-divine-substance.html

does it need to be unified btw?

They're butthurt because you haven't chosen to accept the obligation an altruists. Most altruists get butthurt when others don't accept their obligation because it's a system that requires mass acceptance to function correctly.

>>7026

I've noticed Epicureanism is sort of the root of this

>>6713

It's ok not to understand a question; you don't have to accuse the asker of being arrogant.

In the objective/subjective dichotomy as a paradigm, you could objectively have meaning for yourself, objectively having a subjective meaning. Objective meaning would be counter to this, something that would be objective and beyond your self, a meaning more than just your own.

In order to find the difference of two abstracts, you must quantify them with definitions. Otherwise you can’t determine any sort of meaning. In order the provide the definitions, we have to look at the lexical structure of the english phrases.

Having objective meaning (verb, adjective, noun) Objective is describing the meaning in this context, and it is being possessed.

Objectively having meaning (adverb, verb, noun) Objectively is describing the verb having, so the subject is having meaning in an objective way.

So here’s the difference. Is the meaning itself objective? Then it is having objective meaning. Is there an objective way for something to have meaning? Then it is objectively having meaning.

Objective means universal.

We all know what univeral meanings are.

But can you universally have meaning? The fuck does that mean?

Aren't all feelings objective? What the fuck is a subjective feeling.

Regardless of how you look at it, feelings are one or the other. You can't have subjective and objective feelings at the same time.

>>6708

The former is an object to which meaning is attached. The latter is a meaning that has a specific objective or goal.

>/thread