/philosophy/ - Philosophy

>>6622

I see your point, that "lucky" events don't necessarily have some predestined, god-ordained significance to them. I also didn't mean to imply that luck is some sort of law, just a label for a certain type of event.

>>6640

It's just a way to measure undesirable low frequency events, it's like temerature or distance or time.

>>6657

nobody could have said it better. but its a measure of all ranges, desired or undesired, luck itself. lol. its a cipher, a representative word.

>>6657

Well no because temperature and time can be measured through empirical means but luck cannot.

Things that can be measured : Weight, height, speed, gravity and so on. Tangible forces that exist despite us.

Things that can't be measured : Luck, love, hate, peace and so on. Nebulous concepts created by humans to explain feelings, needs, wants and unexplainable phenomena within our world.

If a bird shits on your shoulder right after you've found a lone 5 dollar bill on the street there's no real correlation between the two happenings. One thing didn't happen just because of this other thing.

They just happened and we ascribe this as having more meaning to it than it actually does.

>>6659

If you consider that a bird shitting on your shoulder is unlucky and you recorded every instance of a person getting shit on vs not shit on, you would be measuring the frequency of luck. Maybe not the magnitude or strength of luck though.

>>6328

Buddha

Aristotle, as far as I know. If you want something short, there's the spurious "On Virtues and Vices". If you want something meatier, there's always the Nicomachian Ethics, Magna Moralia, and Eudemian Ethics.

>>6412

Doesn't Aristotle recommend moderation though?

He would say refusing to drink could be conceived as rude or anti-social, but being drunk isn't socially beneficial and drinking any amount regularly is unhealthy.

He would advocate a glass of wine at a dinner or party once a month.

Seneca

>please no philosophers that aren't fedora tipping faggots.

OP sucks rationalist cock. Again, Sage.

>>6629

I also want to add that I enjoy our conversation and that I find it interesting to share my opinions with someone who disagrees with me.

>>6615

'Races' are collections of similar traits that are distinct enough to be considered groups but not to be considered subspecies. Non-caucasian races are less intelligent on average than caucasian races.

The world could 'go on' after a multitude of events that you would be opposed to. What justification do you have for your continuation of life, if you are unlikely to affect the 'going on' of the world? You have given this argument without any alternative.

>>6637

And where exactly do you draw the distinction for what constitutes one race contra another race? You are, by the by, using an erroneous distinction by using caucasian to mean "white" as caucasian can apply to a wide variety of people from all over Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

The term caucasian has been twisted and appropriated to simply mean "white" which is a gross oversimplification. Similarly to word "aryan" which does not mean white but are encompassing of genetic traits which can be found in people all over the world not just blue eyed, blonde and white people.

So when you say to one "race", using your definition of race that is, means nothing.

Your whole outlook on race is primarily based on pseudoscience, linguistic shortcuts and general ignorance.

>You have given this argument without any alternative.

That's because it isn't an argument with alternatives in the first place. If you live you live, if you die you die. Any meaning found therein is completely of your own volition. If thinking about your own racial superiority over other races gives you some semblance of purpose then, fine, who gives a shit that's what gets YOU going.

I personally think you could, if you wanted to, strain yourself to find something more meaningful and productive to believe in but that's a journey you have to make on your own.

>>6644

>And where exactly do you draw the distinction for what constitutes one race contra another race? You are, by the by, using an erroneous distinction by using caucasian to mean "white" as caucasian can apply to a wide variety of people from all over Europe, Western Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, North Africa, and the Horn of Africa.

>The term caucasian has been twisted and appropriated to simply mean "white" which is a gross oversimplification. Similarly to word "aryan" which does not mean white but are encompassing of genetic traits which can be found in people all over the world not just blue eyed, blonde and white people.

If you do not have the capacity to understand what is meant, when the meaning of the term used can not be exactly defined using other words, then this is your cognitive lack. The terms caucasian and aryan have indeed been used in multiple ways, this does not mean that they are somehow beholden to what you conceive to be one of those ways.

>So when you say to one "race", using your definition of race that is, means nothing.

How does the relationship between signifier and signified being arbitrary mean that the signifier does not signify?

>That's because it isn't an argument with alternatives in the first place. If you live you live, if you die you die. Any meaning found therein is completely of your own volition. If thinking about your own racial superiority over other races gives you some semblance of purpose then, fine, who gives a shit that's what gets YOU going.

>I personally think you could, if you wanted to, strain yourself to find something more meaningful and productive to believe in but that's a journey you have to make on your own.

but people die dude, so whatever dude, it's like create your own meaning and shit, i swear dude, just take the journey through reddit and the self-help book section at the thrift store..

>>6645

>If you do not have the capacity to understand what is meant, when the meaning of the term used can not be exactly defined using other words, then this is your cognitive lack. The terms caucasian and aryan have indeed been used in multiple ways, this does not mean that they are somehow beholden to what you conceive to be one of those ways.

La di da.

The reason I bring it up is because the definition keeps, conveniently, changing with the times and the context.

But the bottom line being that there's still this lingering persistence to make the "white" race more important and "better" than other races even when there's no justification or scientific confirmation for it being provably true.

I can easily point this out but people put so much of their own personal self worth and identity in this vague concept of race that whenever I say "your race doesn't make you special", which it doesn't, people see it as an attack on their very personhood.

And I suppose it is if the only thing you have going for yourself is the complexion of your outermost layer of skin.

But the fact that you can't make something of yourself that's YOUR problem that you have to work on.

>How does the relationship between signifier and signified being arbitrary mean that the signifier does not signify?

That was actually a typo on my behalf, whoops, what I meant to say was that saying that one race, the whites, have a "higher I.Q. than other races" means nothing. Which it does because even the definition of I.Q. is another definition which has been horribly confused from it's original meaning.

>just take the journey through reddit and the self-help book section at the thrift store...

And this is somehow worse than the "I'm the chosen white" bullshit that you keep telling yourselfPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

Do you crave meaning?

Yes: What causes you to crave meaning? Is it to indulge yourself, or to improve yourself and those around you?

Are you willing to believe in God?

> Are you willing to follow catholic doctrine? Orthodox? Protestant? Baptist? Other?

>Religion is the opiate of the people should also be expanded. Saying Fascism, Communism, and Anarchism as a final result after 3 questions is too much. The bottom row could be expanded on too. Maybe more than just books, include quotes by famous people, and show examples from history where it worked.. and well.

Why do you want to "self-actualized others"?

>Does it make sense?

no, how does a being other than self actualize a self.

>>6324>>6326

god would be the sum of all humans not one individual human

but one could argue that an individual human might be god to/of the cells of his particular body using my same logic

its basically like the difference between egoism and altruism: scale

>>6322

that said im pretty sure ur scale of god might be broader and thats fine god is infinite scale does not confine him, yet humans are bound to the finite so before we ascend we need to unite on our current scale.

Man created God in his own image.

No.

>>6302

Define God.

Define Humanity,

I refuse to be dissuaded from reality by your fantastical machinations. Just because something changes doesn't mean it's not real. One moment, I'm feeling like a bird in the sky, and in the next I can be in the gutters of misery and despair. Do you deny the existence of these feelings? Are they not real?

I also find it odd, the idea that a perfect eternal entity would create a dreamworld to escape its boring existence. It can't be perfect if it's bored, I say.

1. Objectivism is regurgitated communism for people who don't like communism.

2. You began your post addressing arguments against Objectivism without explaining what it was.

>>6593

>2

I was assuming people had a relatively solid grasp on what it was they were rejecting outright

>1

what

>what is Objectivism

It's a philosophy.

Metaphysics:

Existence is as it is.

Contradictions can't exist

Epistemology:

Man is fallible, conceptual, volitional.

Taking fallibility into account, one can still be certain. Certainty simply describes the best possible state of knowledge - and one can achieve it via logical differentiation and integration.

Ethics:

Achieving one's own rational self-interest/happiness is one's moral purpose.

Ethics (social context):

You should view others as prospective traders.

You should be honest and supportive towards your good traders (in your own interest).

Politics:

The purpose of government is the protection of individual rights and the settling of disputes.

In other words:

Government guarantees that humans may live the human life (i.e. in accordance with their nature)

Aesthetics:

Art ought to idealize reality realistically.

>>6594

The market is an ideal circumstance in which we are all both trader and ware. It's crystallized liberalism. It's also a lot like marxism, basing the entirety of the world upon abstracted if A then B, if B then A formulas that form a circular closed loop. The great contradiction being that this leaves us with no freedom whatsoever, as we are bound to equalizing ourselves with the conclusions of said formulas; the Rand cult was, certainly in practice, a typical one in this.

>>6595

>we are 'ware' on the markets

I mean, in terms of jobs (trade relationships), but it's not like we're slaves

>everything is like 'if A then B' and vice versa

Oist epistemology doesn't purely make use of deduction. Oism, like Aristotle, embraces induction. The Oist understanding of induction is this:

Whenever you get one new fact from your senses or your experience - you integrate it with the whole of your knowledge. Your brain does the rest and effectively that new fact ends up conflicting/integrating with all knowledge that doesn't line up with that particular fact.

You are basically re-evaluating how everything is all the time. There is no 'set in stone' how everything is. There is only your current integration of all the facts you ever experienced.

You are the final judge of the truth.

(We do however say that, even though this is so, facts and concepts are objective - because the material by the senses is objective and objective facts form concepts)

Respects natural rights and freedom, which is important for individual growth and free societies.. Can be a bit too "individualistic" though, people without healthy community/familial ties tend not to thrive.

Libertarianism is my ideal system, but I've come to the conclusion that massive work is necessary to undo the dramatic changes inflicted upon society by the state before we can construct a viable alternative. Additionally, a libertarian society would not survive if it was full of the hyperindividualists that make up much of the movement at present. I think some degree of "collectivism" is necessary to maintain a functional civilization, although I could do without compulsion.

the big gay and jewish af

>>6614

xD

>>5015

/pol/->

>>5002

Full of spooks

>>6542

>nobility and chivalry

S P O O K S

P

O

O

K

S

also gb2 >>>/pol/

It bred capitalism

>>6546

>>6602

02 you haven't read Marx, 46 go commit >>>/suicide/

>>6606

Marx is gay, Bakunin and Proudhon are better. How about no, and I kill you instead?

>No Stirner or Rand

Nigger what do you want then?

>>6605

Faggot, non-objectivist, non-altruistic self-interest. Is Epicurus close? Sextus Empircus? And I'm not your Nigger.

Well, you are a human born in 21st century combine that with cultural, environmental, geographical, religious, sexual, racial and many other factors beyond your control it stands to reason that whatever free will you may have it is heavily contested and compromised by the circumstances that have been forced upon you.

So even if you were able to break away from your current situation would you still be free or just the product of the times, culture and circumstances you came from?

There is no such thing as free will in this reality. It is as though we live in a binary equation. 1's and zero's . We have up or down. right or left. dark to light. you can go on forever in pairs. a part and its counter part. Therefore how can one truly have free-will, if one always has to make a choice given to him based on the parameters of a dimensional hierarchy that most are unable to even comprehend; much less manipulate. It is a researched fact that the sub-conscious makes decisions before we are consciously aware of the decision. Therefore life in a sense is drawn out for us based on our inner most desires and wants. You really do get what you want, but most people have not the slightest clue as to what they really want. They are lost in a consumerist society where they lust after a item they know nothing about. Money would not exist if there was no debt and the U.S Dollar is the number one exported good in america and is responsible for the past 30 years of war because of this little known fact. To say we have free will is almost laughable. We don't know what free will would even begin to feel like. Most would reject it because most like having their hands held. Free Will died with our dreams a long time ago

>>6582

You really need to go back to reddit

>>6529

No, monogamy is a man made social construct backed by loegal proceedings. Where are the marital contracts for wolves? what court upholds wolf marriage? where are the churches for wolves to marry in?

It's possible in some countries to get married to an animal, btw.

>>6548

I didn't say marriage explicitly but something similar to it might be, and if it's man-made is it necessary bad? I mean other man-made things are laws, education, nations, not dying at age 30, etc.

>>6548

Technically some animals have only one partner but only because of specific environments I don't think apply to humans.

Polyamory is just an excuse for women to whore around, nothing more nothing less

>>6531

And for good reason.

Affect.

Someone explain to me the fucking point of reincarnation if I don't remember it.

>>6410

Shit I thought I caught all my errors. Then again my post could've been done a little better.

>>6413

It depends if you look at it through a religious or secular lens. In Buddhism/Hinduism you keep on dying and coming back, until you reach enlightenment and end the cycle by going to Nirvana. As for the secular view, I believe it's due to laws of thermodynamics, mainly the first and second laws.

I have no idea what you're saying but I'm going to hijack the thread to call out the anon on this board who told me to listen to "Great Idea of Philosophy" by Prof. Daniel N. Robinson.

I skipped to the last audio track and he's a theist. His last few sentences are moronic. What we need is a philosopher who is an atheist to record a 60 track CD for profit to counter this over hyped romantic who thinks humanity deserves pain, and who who hates skepticism.

Every time I come to this board, every few weeks or so, I come expecting that there will be no new threads or posts. Despite how dead it is, that still often isn't the case. But I still hold hopes for the future.

Many of that which you state is paradoxical and a contradiction to other words... you can not prove true nihilism/whateverthefuckyoubelieve