Do you really love philosophy?

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:11 pm

James S Saint wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:James,

Why did you say that I am an aesthetics kind of girl? Were you actually referring to aesthetics itself as is being discussed or something else? :mrgreen:

I was referring to this;
Aesthetics (/ɛsˈθɛtɪks/; also spelled æsthetics and esthetics) is a branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of art, beauty, and taste, with the creation and appreciation of beauty.


Thank you for that, Jimmy. You ARE so astute. :mrgreen:
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14918
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:14 pm

Wizard wrote:Most people, even here, hate philosophy, and do not truly love philosophy at all.

Because most are too weak to love philosophy, and lack the power to love philosophy.

Only a powerful mind can claim to love philosophy, to begin with. A weak mind cannot, never, love philosophy. Only the strongest can love philosophy.


You really need to stop drinking that rum, you know. :P
You might want to define "powerful" here for me, but only if you choose to.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14918
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arcturus Descending » Sat Sep 06, 2014 3:35 pm

d63 wrote:"I remember reading what James (JSS) said - that logic needs to go before metaphysics and i kind of go along with that. "

Once again, Arturus, I agree that JSS makes a compelling point -that is since we tend to arrive at metaphysical conclusions via logic and lack the empirical means of confirming our metaphysical assertions. That said, you make some compelling points yourself.Unfortunately, I am at the . I hope to get back to this.


i tend to agree that logic must come first in seeking these ultimate answers. But then again, being the skeptic, lol maybe not always first. What about the use of one's imagination and senses? Well of course the senses do play a part in the formation of logic. Or does logic take these into consideration in the first place? Perhaps they're all harmonized. (rambling).

outre or coda phase of today's process

Heh????????? :-k


Still, I would argue (with some reservations and self questioning (that the import of Logic is propped up by metaphysical assumptions about how we must interact with reality.

Can you explain what you mean by this - give me an example? When you return that is.
SAPERE AUDE!


If I thought that everything I did was determined by my circumstancse and my psychological condition, I would feel trapped.


What we take ourselves to be doing when we think about what is the case or how we should act is something that cannot be reconciled with a reductive naturalism, for reasons distinct from those that entail the irreducibility of consciousness. It is not merely the subjectivity of thought but its capacity to transcend subjectivity and to discover what is objectively the case that presents a problem....Thought and reasoning are correct or incorrect in virtue of something independent of the thinker's beliefs, and even independent of the community of thinkers to which he belongs.

Thomas Nagel


I learn as I write!
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 14918
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Fri Sep 19, 2014 8:07 pm

Provided that one can be "in love with philosophy", I would like to know something about the reasons(s) or even cause(s) for that "love" and wether it is becasue of merely one area, or more areas of the philsophy, or the philosophy itself as a whole.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Tue Nov 11, 2014 11:19 pm

Is "loving philosophy" similar to i.e. "loving god(s)", "loving logic", "loving mathematics", ...?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 2:47 pm

Arminius wrote:Fact is that most ILP members are not interested in philosophy but in social criticism.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:19 pm

For me the ‘love’ can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 5:36 pm

Ok, but if I were to characterize modern philosophy post Hume as it relates to his doubting, I would say it connects well to one strand of early philosophy, scepticism. The fact is there is the effect of the uncertainty which undermined not only a complete and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having little stability or even meaning. The fuzzy feeling one gets in the inside, is basically a good feeling for one's self, we are never too sure what others are feeling. we can only try to ascertain that by expression of others by what they say they feel. often, these types of measures are again open to interpretation.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Fri Mar 06, 2015 7:05 pm

Amorphos wrote:For me the ‘love’ can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.

That "sounds" good, but it could be something between loving a teddy baer, the parents, the sisters, or God on the one side and loving in the sense of liking (interestingly this can not be used as a verb with the ing-form) philosophy on the other side.

Orb wrote:The fact is there is the effect of the uncertainty which undermined not only a complete and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having little stability or even meaning.

In a world of a society that lives in a "foam" (Peter Sloterdijk), everything has merely "little stability or even meaning".
Last edited by Arminius on Fri Mar 06, 2015 9:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:01 pm

Orb

I would say it connects well to one strand of early philosophy, scepticism.


Although scepticism is a negative way of thinking, its positively negative. I think society needs more, i don’t get why so many classics are classics, when they are boring shit. Everything is a bit too ‘yay’ for me these days, salesmen saying ‘sell sell sell’ as if a positive instruction, when its actually just moronic. Not to mention that our governments and societies have devious intent or worse, a knowing ignorance in some of their politics/attitude [e.g. the unemployed, mentally ill, the old], which again is just unintelligent.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:12 pm

Arminius wrote:
Amorphos wrote:For me the ‘love’ can be a kind of joy [sometimes despair] in the mind, it feels warm and it rewards us when we resolve something. Not thinking like a philosopher is a dullness in the mind [to me anyhow] just like not
being in love with a person is.

Probably just that we are an instrument with those
kinds of responses and rewards. Then however we
express that gives us said rewards and responses, possibly the same thing in religion when people love god, or in children when they love a teddy bear.


That "sounds" good, but it could be something between loving a teddy baer, the parents, the sisters
, or God on the one side and loving in the sense of

liking (interestingly this can not be used as a verb with the ing-form) philosophy on the other side.



Orb wrote:The fact is there is the effect of the
uncertainty which undermined not only a complete
and lasting resolution, but that of love of God, ergo Man, and Love of anything is seen nowedays as a very precarious and recurrent phenomena having
little stability or even meaning.

In a world of a society that lives in a "foam

" (Peter Sloterdijk), evrything has merely "little stability or even meaning".


true. but that is the old apology for the faustian transgression.apologists and sceptics are aimicable bedfellows
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Orbie » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:15 pm

Amorphos wrote:Orb

I would say it connects well to one strand of early philosophy, scepticism.




Although scepticism is a negative way of thinking, its
positively negative. I think society needs more, i
don’t get why so many classics are classics, when they are boring shit. Everything is a bit too ‘yay’ for me these days, salesmen saying ‘sell sell sell’ as if a
positive instruction, when its actually just moronic.
Not to mention that our governments and societies have devious intent or worse, a knowing ignorance in some of their politics/attitude [e.g. the unemployed,
mentally ill, the old], which again is just unintelligent.



absolutely, in the old sense of the word, when meaning could not be reversed. but, today, reversals are commonplace, and for every negative there seems to be a positive. a step in the right direction. the foam of dealing with reality vs logic.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Amorphos » Fri Mar 06, 2015 8:35 pm

Orb, do you mean something like ‘we need both’, the sceptic wants something new, and when that change occurs their same scepticism makes a complaint about it. Then that humanity is in that soup - so to say.
The truth is naked,
Once it is written it is lost.
Genius is the result of the entire product of man.
The cosmic insignificance of humanity, shows the cosmic insignificance of a universe without humanity.
the fully painted picture, reveals an empty canvas
User avatar
Amorphos
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7048
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 9:49 pm
Location: infinity

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 23, 2015 4:08 pm

Arminius wrote:I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF ("I Love Fun"),
(2) ILG ("I Love Gossip"),
(3) ILL ("I Love Lies"),
(4) ILN 1 ("I love Nietzsche"),
(5) ILN 2 ("I love Nonsense"),
(6) ILN 3 ("I Love Nothing"),
(7) ILP ("I Love Philosophy") (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:18 pm

Arminius wrote:In any case:

One has to have electric transmitter, for example: nerves.

Without logic consciousness makes no sense because there must be a construction of a logical relationship for the consciousness, even also when it is merely an imagination. Without logic language makes also no sense. But what about logic? Does logic make sense without consciousness? No. Does logic make sense without language? Probably yes. A very primitive bacterium somehow "knows" what to do in order to survive, but probably does not need a language (note: language does not necessarily always mean "human language", but also "language for all beings").

Another consideration:

Luxury.

If we consider the principle "luxury", we come to other results: in that case namely the language came perhaps first because the sense behind it was simply the luxury from which other phenomena arose, e.g. logic. So the grunt (as an example) has only a meaning behind it because of the luxury of grunts.

Referring to the German scientist Paul Alsberg (cp. "Das Menschheitsrätsel, 1922) the German philosopher Peter Sloterdijk once said (in: Geo -Wissen, September 1998, p. 43-47): "The human beings are descended from the throw" ( :o ) and "human beings have no coat / fur / hide / pett anymore because they are luxury beings", no beings of adaptation to their environment (cp. Darwin and Darwinism), but on the contrary: beings of alienation,of insulation (cp. isles and islands). Human language, human sexuality, human emotions ... etc. are possibly caused by luxury. But what about language in general then?


What are you even saying? Sexuality is a survival mechanism, not a product of luxury. Same with communication and emotions. Rich people did not sit down and decide to make up emotions one day.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Tue Jul 14, 2015 5:20 pm

Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF ("I Love Fun"),
(2) ILG ("I Love Gossip"),
(3) ILL ("I Love Lies"),
(4) ILN 1 ("I love Nietzsche"),
(5) ILN 2 ("I love Nonsense"),
(6) ILN 3 ("I Love Nothing"),
(7) ILP ("I Love Philosophy") (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).


I don't know about you, but my goal here is to get everyone to have the same ideals I do.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:18 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Sexuality is a survival mechanism, not a product of luxury.

You must have misunderstood something. Probably you do not know what human "luxury" really means. In addition, sexuality is not only a "survival mechanism".

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Same with communication and emotions.

No. You must have misunderstood something. Probably you do not know what human "communication" and "emotions" really mean. In addition, communication and emotions are also not only a "survival mechanism" or two survival mechanisms.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:Rich people did not sit down and decide to make up emotions one day.

Nobody said that rich people did "sit down and decide to make up emotions one day". You must have misunderstood something. ....

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Arminius wrote:
Arminius wrote:I suggest to reform ILP and to call it „IL“ with the following eight subforums:

(1) ILF ("I Love Fun"),
(2) ILG ("I Love Gossip"),
(3) ILL ("I Love Lies"),
(4) ILN 1 ("I love Nietzsche"),
(5) ILN 2 ("I love Nonsense"),
(6) ILN 3 ("I Love Nothing"),
(7) ILP ("I Love Philosophy") (that means: averagely merely 12.5% [1/8] are really interested in philosophy),
(8) ILSC (I Love Social Criticism).


I don't know about you, but my goal here is to get everyone to have the same ideals I do.

And what are your "ideals"?
Last edited by Arminius on Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:20 am

Here is an example that shows how much a person can love philosophy:

Orbie wrote:I was in prison only once for prostitution. I sold myself so i could study philosophy. In prisn, one month, i did not experoence anything, because i was in with the blacks, and nobody bothered me in spite of my pretty boy status. I was not queered, nor did i become anyone's bitch, because i knew how to play the game, learned from the streets. I lost my job with traffic violations when they found out, but had the whole affair ex-punged after 3 years because i was considered a minor at the time. I was arrested several times after that but never served time for them. I became very claustrophobic after this, and even to this day, developed all kids of phobias. I developed a very deep respect for the law there after. Thank You.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:57 am

Arminius wrote:And what are your "ideals"?


My ideals, is that humans are mostly retards, and they need their DNA changed.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Jul 15, 2015 12:58 am

Arminius wrote:Here is an example that shows how much a person can love philosophy:

Orbie wrote:I was in prison only once for prostitution. I sold myself so i could study philosophy. In prisn, one month, i did not experoence anything, because i was in with the blacks, and nobody bothered me in spite of my pretty boy status. I was not queered, nor did i become anyone's bitch, because i knew how to play the game, learned from the streets. I lost my job with traffic violations when they found out, but had the whole affair ex-punged after 3 years because i was considered a minor at the time. I was arrested several times after that but never served time for them. I became very claustrophobic after this, and even to this day, developed all kids of phobias. I developed a very deep respect for the law there after. Thank You.


Philosophy is not something you need money to study. Philosophy is something you craft on your own volition. Not read long books to parrot others.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 15, 2015 1:41 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Arminius wrote:And what are your "ideals"?

My ideals, is that humans are mostly retards, and they need their DNA changed.

From another thread:

Arminius wrote:When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. Although it is difficult to say whether there is one human culture or several human cultures, I would say, if I had to refer to merely one human culture, that a human being is a luxury being. In another thread I said:

The luxury is a very special phenomenon, especially for human beings. Human beings are luxury beings. They make their artificial island of luxury in the sea of nature. Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, but also about distancing from nature, thus about the luxury islands.


Only human beings (thus no other living beings) are able to distance or disassociate themselves so much from nature. Humans live on islands of luxury. They have their human bubbles like hulls / shells, caves, huts / cottages, houses, beyond that: castles, churches / cathedrals, cities, city states, states, nations, empires, global empires ... and so forth. Because they are much more spiritual / mental / intellectual than other creatures, they have not only a bodily but also a spiritual immune system. This spiritual immune system is the main cause of the enormous luxury and the characteristic feature of human culture/s. Because of the fact that there are many different spiritual immune systems of humans possible, one should rather speak about several human cultures and not about one human culture.

Arminius wrote:
project2501 wrote:So culture is the same as nature?

No. Culture it is not the same as nature, but it is a part of nature. I said: "When it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s." That does not mean that nature and culture are the same. They are similar, not the same. There are analogies between them.

Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture. But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.

Arminius wrote:
Prismatic567 wrote:
Arminius wrote:Naturally human beings are animal beings, but culturally human beings are not animal beings but human beings (just becaue of their culture). Of course, there are feedbacks between nature and culture, thus also between human nature and human culture.
But if it comes to distinguish the nature of human beings from the nature of other living beings, then human nature is human culture/s. And one of the main features of human culture/s is luxury.
In another perspective;

If human nature is 100%, it can also be represented as the combination of,
98% animal nature + 2% specific human nature..

That is also my estimation and assessment. But these 2% are not really few - we know it, especially from genetics.

Prismatic567 wrote:Despite the significant difference in the external expressions of humans as distinct from other living things, I think the above combination is applicable to describe human nature.

For example, if we were to transplant that 2% of human properties to our nearest primates, they would like to be very similar to humans in time.
At present primates/dolphins already have some degree of culture that are similar to humans, i.e. the use of tool, games, language, deliberated evil, etc.

The use of tools that do not belong to the own body are alrerady a prestage of luxury; the use of language, if it is close to the value of the human language, as well; games do all mammals have (maybe it is a pre-prestage of luxury). B.t.w.: Luxury can be measured by the degree of insulation. The more living beings are able to live on an own "island" (meant as a metaphor!), the more they are luxury beings. Or, in other words, the more living beings are able to behave against the Darwinistic evolution, the more they are luxury beings. Insulations give those beings a relative (!) independence of adaptation to nature. The adaptation to nature has not vanished but has been added by dissociation of nature. And the only living being that has achieved this independence in a sufficient extent is the human being.

The question is how we value this relative (!) independence. This relative independence is caused by insulation or dissociation of nature with the main effect: luxury. And this insulation is (a) natuarlly caused by the relatively huge brain and (b) culturally caused by the huge consciousness, awareness, knowkedge, language of human beings.

That's an interesting theme.

Arminius wrote:Humans do not completely fit in the scheme of the Darwinistic evolution theory!

Arminius wrote:In the case of the humans self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism is one aspect, yes, but the main aspect is the insulation (dissociation of nature) which leads to luxury and is naturally caused by the brain. So we have (1) the brain, (2) the insulation (dissociation of nature), (3) the luxury and also the self-consciousness with its epiphenomenon egoism and many other features, but it is more the luxury that leads to the self-consciousness than it is the self-consciousness that leads to luxury. Some animals have self-consciousness in almost the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have, but these animals do not have luxury in the degree that human children in the age of 1 to 2 years have. And human children become egoistic in that typical human way (you said: "extreme") after that age, usually when they are older than 2 years. Luxury is more a communal than a personal matter.The human development is more a communal than a personal ("individual") development. The human development is more a cultural than a natural development, because the natural development of the humans is more (about 98%; see above) an animal development than a human development.

Naturally you need a relative large and a very complex brain, if you want to become a human being, but then, when that brain exists, your further development is more a cultural than a natural development. The huge consciousness (with its accordingly huge self-consciousness), the huge knowledge, the huge and complex language, ... were naturally caused by the brain but would be totally useless, if their development were merely a natural development. The humans are humans very much more because of their cultural development than because of their natural development. Naturally humans are 98%-animals, but culturally humans are 98%-humans.

Arminius wrote:As I said (for example: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here): Human beings are luxury beings.

Evolution is not just about adaptation to nature, to environment, but also about distancing from nature, from environment, thus about the "luxury islands".

Human beings are the only living beings that can disassociate themselves from nature in such a dimension that they do not completely have to adapt themselves to nature, to their natural environment. They can destroy the nature just for fun. Other living beings can also have a little bit luxury, but their luxury is always embedded in their immediate nature, their natural environment. They are not able to overcome their dependence of nature. They remain living creatures in the sense of Darwinism: those that are successful have the most descendants, and those that are not successful have the less or no descendants and die out. Luxury beings are the only living beings that can show also the opposite direction: being successful and having less or no descendants (children) and beeing unsuccessful and having the most descendants (children). This two cases would immediately lead to extinction, if they were completely embedded in nature, in natural environment. In the case of human beings it does not lead to extinction, if they are in situations of independence of nature; they often are in such situations, and then It depends on human decisions whether a group of human beings or even all human beings die out or not. Humans have two natures: (1) the real nature which all other living beings also have, (2) their own nature as their culture(s) which is (are) much independend of the real nature.

So when I say "human nature is human culture/s", then I mean that - in a pure natural sense - humans are 98%-animals; so in this sense they have a 98%-animal nature and merely a 2%-human nature, but this 2% are their culture/s. And in a pure cultural sense this relation is inversely proportional.

If humans are humans to 100%, then merely to 2% because of their nature; but to 98% because of their culture/s!

Arminius wrote:1) The prestage of the human luxury beings was the upright walking which leads to the possibility of using hands in many other ways than walking which leads to a more voluminous brain with very much more capacity which leads to the birth of the luxury being.

2) The "birth" of the human luxury beings was the use of fire which was associated with the use of language.

3) The "youth" of the human luxury beings was the sapientisation.

4) The "adulthood" of the human luxury beings began when they were left alone, thus with the Neanderthal extinction (since then there has been being merely one species of the humans).

    4a) The "early adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the Neanderthal extinction to the transition (the so-called "Neolithic Revolution") to the agriculture.

    4b) The "middle adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the agriculture to that probable date in the future when machines will take over (=>).

    4c) The "late adulthood" of the human luxury beings: from the probable date in the future when machines will have taken over to the death of the last human.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So currently we at the stage 4b.

Arminius wrote:Humans can never be 100%-animals but "merely" 98%-animals, and humans can never be gods but godwannabes, although no 100%-godwannabes but "merely" 98%-godwannabes. :wink:
=>#

Humans are not perfect. They are not capable of being 100%-animals and also not capable of being gods.

So you are saying that humans "need their DNA changed". Okay, but what, if they will have changed their DNA?

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Arminius wrote:Here is an example that shows how much a person can love philosophy:

Orbie wrote:I was in prison only once for prostitution. I sold myself so i could study philosophy. In prisn, one month, i did not experoence anything, because i was in with the blacks, and nobody bothered me in spite of my pretty boy status. I was not queered, nor did i become anyone's bitch, because i knew how to play the game, learned from the streets. I lost my job with traffic violations when they found out, but had the whole affair ex-punged after 3 years because i was considered a minor at the time. I was arrested several times after that but never served time for them. I became very claustrophobic after this, and even to this day, developed all kids of phobias. I developed a very deep respect for the law there after. Thank You.

Philosophy is not something you need money to study. Philosophy is something you craft on your own volition. Not read long books to parrot others.

I agree. But it could nevertheless be possible that Orbie loved philosophy and thought (wrongly) that he needed money to study his "true love".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5581
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:05 am

Arminius wrote:I agree. But it could nevertheless be possible that Orbie loved philosophy and thought (wrongly) that he needed money to study his "true love".


Either Orbie is a troll, or he or she has serious mental problems to the point of needing to work something out with a therapist. Whoring your body to pay for rent is one thing...but whoring your body in order to search for philosophy...that's something else..Especially when your local library is only a few cliques away..

So you are saying that humans "need their DNA changed". Okay, but what, if they will have changed their DNA?


When they change their DNA, they will become more intelligient, more healthy, athletic, kind, and good looking. By more intelligient, I mean they will be able to program and understand massive equations that only idiot savants can. This will be the new average. Imagine all the world, full of geniuses, but without the negative attributes, like lacking social skills. If everyone is a scientist, as well as healthy and athletic, the world's problems will end. And not only that, but there will be great new suprises, improved relationships, and scientific progress and tech beyond your wildest dreams.

All from just modifying a little bit of DNA.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:15 am

I think you should probably shut up about obie, trix.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:33 am

phoneutria wrote:I think you should probably shut up about obie, trix.


This an open boards. Im not going to be silent about this. Orbie, get help.
I am losing my mind to mandess.
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2136
Joined: Thu Mar 12, 2015 6:18 pm

Re: Do you really love philosophy?

Postby phoneutria » Wed Jul 15, 2015 2:49 am

I couldn't lay down the hammer on you even if I wanted to. Just pointing out that when you don't even know if someone is a he or a she, there is very little you can say about them without sounding like a little shit.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2732
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot]