Challenge to the Agonists

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

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:41 pm

Jakob,


No, suffering is a derivative of joy.


I can see how each in turn can derive from the other.

We fall in love, we are filled with such happiness and joy. Love leaves us and we fall into suffering because what gave us joy has been taken from us.

We have lost a child and mourn that child. We suffer until the moment comes when we have given birth to another child. Joy is then derived from great suffering.

I cannot really see how someone can have one without the other.
How can we experience or know something without knowing its opposite?



They are certainly not equal opposites.


But isn't it possible that they might be? The equality would be within the measure of joy or suffering which was felt.
The greater the joy the greater the suffering when life has denied us something and vica versa.
It is like they say - only one who has fallen to the lowest degree is capable of rising to the highest degree.


Ive always been saying existence isn't symmetrical,


Define what YOU mean by *existence* here. Many things are symmetrical in life, nature, etc.
Wouldn't you say that there is symmetry in a sense in your work about Value Ontology?
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: 14913
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby James S Saint » Mon Oct 23, 2017 4:09 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I cannot really see how someone can have one without the other.
How can we experience or know something without knowing its opposite?

If that theory was true, one could never know either until after they experienced the other, thus never.

Both require a desire, but neither requires that other.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25604
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Mon Oct 23, 2017 7:05 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:I cannot really see how someone can have one without the other.
How can we experience or know something without knowing its opposite?


Lol that's a fallacy lol. You need to upgrade your philosophy to Ultimate Philosophy level.

If someone can only see the color green, you don't say you need to see the color purple to understand green. green is green.

You are thinking about it the wrong way. See I am the greatest philosopher on the whole planet, Yet women don't appreciate me just because I don't have a fancy yacht. And they reproduce the dum dum genes like dating some YOLO guido who's daddy inherited a yacht for him, and leave geniuses like me and tesla to die childless. Just because my father happened to make some bad decisions and lose out on his high paying engineer job with Boeing, so now I'm being punished for his bad choices. Then you make up some bullshit about claiming Im genetic defective somehow, because I want to be a woman, even though women exemplify the highest form of genetic perfection, then ignore that im a genius and that my genes are actually genetic superior to everyone else.
like people would rather date this dude instead of me, even though i have been told i am the reincarnation of neitzche. Neitzche had zero kids, but guidos get like 10 kids. Like they can't even realize they are simply obeying their most basic primal instincts and they seem to helpless to even act like strong human beings who have no power to overcome their basic instincts, like their body automatically says "Date the rich guy with the 90 iq, rich=attractive" like they have no power to question or override their basic instincts and just obey like a basic animal. Then you wonder why modern philosophy sucks and the gene pool sucks.

For example, Magnus anderson is a genius or semi genius, and yet women are standoffish to him and he has no kids. This is because of reverse natural selection. Satyr is genius or semi genius, has only 1 child and wife divorces him. Again reverse natural selection at work here. Its like on ILP, no woman sends me a pm saying Hey you are a genius, lets date. I litterally get nothing for my efforts.
But this guy, joe shmoe, does why I guess because he works out his abs and has more money than me?
Image

So again, Im running a charity here, giving out wisdoms and I get nothing for it.

So lets talk about the main topic at hand.

What is an opposite? Something 180 degrees in the opposite direction? Are there even a such thing as an opposite?
Seems like this is the result of flawed thinking patterns.

Is sadness really the opposite of joy? Is it able to be quantatively defined as an opposite, or it just feels good to say the word opposite, like an emotional relief? Second is it really accurate to say you need sadness to experience joy? Hypothetically, if someone was put in joy with no sadness, is sadness actually required to experience that joy? Is the color purple required to experience the color green?

Nope but people are gonna repeat the same Facebook memes they learned on the interwebs over and over, like spreading on the webs like a broken record.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:22 pm

James S Saint wrote: The common thread in concept between the use in physics and the mind...

Yes, this is what I'm also looking at. I interpreted the second part of your first post as if you might be implying that the universe is biased towards positive things because negative negative particles are smaller; or that universe might favor positive. If that is the case, then I will have to disagree. If not, then what is the relationship between spacing and sizing of these small isolated particles and mental states? Were you trying to make a connection?

In regards to instinctive goals of all living things, one of which might be an aversion to pain, I would argue that even self maintenance requires exposure to uncertainty/anxiety and/or suffering. It just doesn't make sense to say that universe favors joy or positive, or whatever, if the process of life itself is negative. If everything was about joy and pain avoidance, then there wouldn't be any life at all. Why would it even be, in the first place?
It wouldn't have to.
Because of fundamental structure of life itself, to say that life pursues joy is really to say, to quote someone, that life pursues the death instinct, or self annihilation.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Jakob » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:38 pm

Pandora wrote:
James S Saint wrote: The common thread in concept between the use in physics and the mind...

Yes, this is what I'm also looking at. I interpreted the second part of your first post as if you might be implying that the universe is biased towards positive things because negative negative particles are smaller; or that universe might favor positive. If that is the case, then I will have to disagree. If not, then what is the relationship between spacing and sizing of these small isolated particles and mental states? Were you trying to make a connection?

In regards to instinctive goals of all living things, one of which might be an aversion to pain, I would argue that even self maintenance requires exposure to uncertainty/anxiety and/or suffering. It just doesn't make sense to say that universe favors joy or positive, or whatever, if the process of life itself is negative. If everything was about joy and pain avoidance, then there wouldn't be any life at all. Why would it even be, in the first place?
It wouldn't have to.
Because of fundamental structure of life itself, to say that life pursues joy is really to say, to quote someone, that life pursues the death instinct, or self annihilation.

Life IS joy.
In this capacity it pursues more of itself (self-valuing).

Suffering is only life directing itself towards joy - to itself.
If you'll notice, life tends to avoid suffering. Unless that suffering is seen as leading to greater joys.




It is a form of very low and weak joy to think life is suffering. It is just a lowly weak lifeform trying to pretend it doesn't have any reason to look up to other forms, which hurts the small being.



What is joy? Power, essentially.
Pain is the absence of power.
Thus, wounds invigorate.





But people, this really should be 101.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5713
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 5:44 pm

Jakob wrote:Life IS joy.
In this capacity it pursues more of itself (self-valuing).

Suffering is only life directing itself towards joy - to itself.
If you'll notice, life tends to avoid suffering. Unless that suffering is seen as leading to greater joys.




It is a form of very low and weak joy to think life is suffering. It is just a lowly weak lifeform trying to pretend it doesn't have any reason to look up to other forms, which hurts the small being.



What is joy? Power, essentially.
Pain is the absence of power.
Thus, wounds invigorate.





But people, this really should be 101.

101 maybe, but not 1001.
You're really thinking about this incorrectly dude.

But im depressed and lazy so it may be a while before I elaborate why.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:35 pm

Genius does not have to be rewarded with sex and the only reason you think it does is because you desperately want some
your self but Magnus and Satyr are presumably fine with not having any so it is not true for all men as you seem to assume
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:43 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:Genius does not have to be rewarded with sex and the only reason you think it does is because you desperately want some
your self but Magnus and Satyr are presumably fine with not having any so it is not true for all men as you seem to assume


No they are not malfunctioning asexuals like you.

Second of all sex is not just a reward is a requirement for continuation of the gene pool. But you could care less about the fate of the world because you selfishly want to die and forget about this planet forever. So yeah keep saying that people at Mcdonalds with 70 iq should have babies and it doesnt matter if me or you has babies or not.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:13 pm

I am going to die whether I want to or not and the planet is eventually going to die too. Meawhile the global population is
going to increase without any help from me whatsoever. And I never said any thing about McDonalds or IQ levels or babies
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:19 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:I am going to die whether I want to or not and the planet is eventually going to die too. Meawhile the global population is
going to increase without any help from me whatsoever. And I never said any thing about McDonalds or IQ levels or babies

Good I hope the planet does die, its a shitty world anyway
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:03 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
I hope the planet does die its a shitty world anyway

You are unhappy but you can change your negative mental attitude if you really want to
or you can simply carry on being miserable for the rest of your life so the choice is yours
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:10 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
I hope the planet does die its a shitty world anyway

You are unhappy but you can change your negative mental attitude if you really want to
or you can simply carry on being miserable for the rest of your life so the choice is yours


If im gonna die and forget my life anyway forever what does it matter? see your line of thinking doesn't add up.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby surreptitious75 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:31 pm

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
I hope the planet does die its a shitty world anyway

You are unhappy but you can change your negative mental attitude if you really want to
or you can simply carry on being miserable for the rest of your life so the choice is yours

If Im gonna die and forget my life anyway forever what does it matter ? See your line of thinking doesnt add up

It does not matter in the grand scheme of things [ nothing does ] but it does matter in the here and now so focus on that instead
So then look to living a good life while you are alive and then having a good death free from all pain and suffering for ever more
A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN
surreptitious75
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Sun Aug 27, 2017 5:48 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:47 pm

surreptitious75 wrote:
Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
surreptitious75 wrote:You are unhappy but you can change your negative mental attitude if you really want to
or you can simply carry on being miserable for the rest of your life so the choice is yours

If Im gonna die and forget my life anyway forever what does it matter ? See your line of thinking doesnt add up

It does not matter in the grand scheme of things [ nothing does ] but it does matter in the here and now so focus on that instead
So then look to living a good life while you are alive and then having a good death free from all pain and suffering for ever more


i born male but i wish i was female. good life is denied to me.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:29 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:What is it that we are overcoming?
Weakness and need, but because life goes on, it has to be continuously maintained and reinforced.
We are overcoming whatever is resisting our efforts to achieve our goals.
You are disregarding qualitative differences of "how". There maybe 1001 ways to get from point A to B, but it doesn't mean they are all equal.

If you want to get closer to achieving your goals you have to choose the path that will get you closer to achieving your goals more than any other path.
I'm taking that to you, the end justifies the means, but what of the "how"? Is that not relevant to you? What if "how-process" eventually determines the qualitative difference in an entity, which in turn, may even influence what goals that entity will have. And these qualitative differences come into play when using the same descriptive words. Otherwise, words like "coward", "brave" or "self-love" become meaningless when applied to actual processes or behaviors.

We use intelligence in order to predict how much closer we will get to achieve our goals if we were to go down this or that path.
Sometimes, the quickest path is also the shortsighted path. You may get something quicker now, but you (or your descendants) will definitely pay for it later. And so, what of the original goal? And more so, what can we say of such goal originator?
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 9:51 pm

Pandora wrote:Because of fundamental structure of life itself, to say that life pursues joy is really to say, to quote someone, that life pursues the death instinct, or self annihilation.


Joy is simply how we feel when we attain a goal.
Or as James says, when we get closer to it or make progress towards it (which is basically the same considering that moving towards a goal means attaining a sub-goal of that goal.)
It's another word for success.
What joy doesn't tell you is what kind of goal is attained.
It could be any kind of goal.
And what joy doesn't tell you is what kind of effect such an attainment has on other goals.
In other words, it does not tell you whether it moves you towards or away from attaining other goals.
Doing drugs helps you get rid of pain (which is good, because pain makes you weak) but it makes it difficult for you to remain functional and most of all alive (which is a bad thing.)
People who do drugs have no other choice.
It makes no sense to say that they are moving AWAY from being alive since they have no other choice.
All the talk about how they are moving away from being alive is hypothetical. Mere "what if"s.
Sure, if they resolved their pain in a way that doesn't have the consequences that doing drugs have they would have faced . . . better consequence.
They would have moved you closer to remaining alive than doing drugs would.
But that's not something they can do, so it makes no sense to say that they are pursuing self-annihilation or whatever other than as a metaphor.
It's like saying that a cow is pursuing death when she's being slaughtered.
SHE SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED OTHERS FROM SLAUGHTERING HER, WHY DID SHE CHOOSE NOT TO?
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:01 pm

Jakob wrote:Life IS joy.
You sound like Arc now (and the rest of Jungians): everything is beautiful, everything is holy, and I see rainbows everywhere.

Suffering is only life directing itself towards joy - to itself. If you'll notice, life tends to avoid suffering. Unless that suffering is seen as leading to greater joys.
It's more like, life is suffering, and perpetuates itself through a delusion of "joy". Take sexual pleasure in humans, which leads to reproduction, a joy that leads to more suffering (life) being brought into the world. and so on and on.

It is a form of very low and weak joy to think life is suffering. It is just a lowly weak lifeform trying to pretend it doesn't have any reason to look up to other forms, which hurts the small being.
Well, sorry for not being able to see joy in perpetual struggle for survival. Should I be? The way things are built in, regardless of how I feel about it, it's more suffering through joy, not joy through suffering.

What is joy? Power, essentially.
Pain is the absence of power.
Thus, wounds invigorate.
t-e-m-p-o-r-a-r-i-l-y. Can you maintain power indefinitely? No. Back to pain you go. Like a bird in flight, you have to keep flapping your wings to stay up in the air.

But people, this really should be 101.
It's okay, we pigs don't fly and so don't mind spending our lives digging in the dirt below. ;)
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:28 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Doing drugs helps you get rid of pain (which is good, because pain makes you weak) but it makes it difficult for you to remain functional and most of all alive (which is a bad thing.)
People who do drugs have no other choice.
It makes no sense to say that they are moving AWAY from being alive since they have no other choice.
All the talk about how they are moving away from being alive is hypothetical. Mere "what if"s.
I don't think we're on the same page here. When people say that purpose of life is to pursue joy or happiness and that life is about pursuing sunshine and rainbows or what not, they are forgetting the fundamental nature of life itself, and so metaphorically speaking, are moving away from life; at least in their perception. It's a type of self delusion, or self numbing. In that case, it is a choice.

Sure, if they resolved their pain in a way that doesn't have the consequences that doing drugs have they would have faced . . . better consequence.
They would have moved you closer to remaining alive than doing drugs would.
But that's not something they can do, so it makes no sense to say that they are pursuing self-annihilation or whatever other than as a metaphor.
It's like saying that a cow is pursuing death when she's being slaughtered.
SHE SHOULD HAVE PREVENTED OTHERS FROM SLAUGHTERING HER, WHY DID SHE CHOOSE NOT TO?
And that brings us back to qualitative differences. Given the same circumstances, a person A may not make the same choose as person B, and so not all people (or nations) are created equal. So, in case of Syrian refugees: to survive or to die defending?
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:37 pm

Pandora wrote:Weakness and need, but because life goes on, it has to be continuously maintained and reinforced.


Weakness = the inability to achieve a goal.
Need = that which sets goals.

You are disregarding qualitative differences of "how". There maybe 1001 ways to get from point A to B, but it doesn't mean they are all equal.


Probably more than 1001. And yes, they aren't equal. Nonetheless, it is our goal that determines what kind of means are permitted.

I'm taking that to you, the end justifies the means, but what of the "how"? Is that not relevant to you?


It is the end (i.e. our goal) that separates the good means from the bad means.
Note that there is such a thing as an organization of goals.
Goals can be organized in a hierarchy.

If all I want to do is consume something then any kind of path that lets me eat will be good. This means that eating my own parents is good too. But if there is a higher goal that demands that my parents remain alive then it's a bad thing to eat my parents.

Sometimes, the quickest path is also the shortsighted path.


Yes.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:55 pm

Pandora wrote:It's more like, life is suffering, and perpetuates itself through a delusion of "joy". Take sexual pleasure in humans, which leads to reproduction, a joy that leads to more suffering (life) being brought into the world. and so on and on.


You are more on track than James, but still a little bit off. Joy is not a delusion, but an illusion.

What I define as an illusion is, "A phenomenon which requires an above usual amount of complexity and maintenance to sustain itself, as well as, imaginative energy and a healthy imagination to appreciate."

So for example, Entertainment is an illusion. Because when you break it down you say...Why is this entertaining. It should not be entertaining. But yet if you have healthy imaginative energy, it is entertaining, as long as you dont over focus on why it should not exist.
This is the same as joy.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Magnus Anderson » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:56 pm

Pandora wrote:When people say that purpose of life is to pursue joy or happiness and that life is about pursuing sunshine and rainbows or what not, they are forgetting the fundamental nature of life itself, and so metaphorically speaking, are moving away from life; at least in their perception. It's a type of self delusion, or self numbing. In that case, it is a choice.


Since joy is merely what follows when a goal is attained, saying that "the purpose of life to pursue joy" means that it does not matter what kind of goals you are pursuing so as long you can attain them. It merely indicates that people are degenerating in the sense that they are losing those tendencies that were cultivated by their ancestors. You can say they no longer have customs. If you have customs then you can't pursue any kind of goal. Customs impose restrictions on what you can do and what you cannot do. Without them, anything goes. Wanna be a homosexual? No problem. Wanna do drugs? No problem. Wanna fuck around? No problem. And I don't think that people "freely choose" to degenerate. They degenerate for a complex set of reasons that remain largely unknown to us. It's a necessity. A necessity that people may and often do dislike but still a course that has to take its place. Everything has a beginning and an end.
I got a philosophy degree, I'm not upset that I can't find work as a philosopher. It was my decision, and I knew that it wasn't a money making degree, so I get money elsewhere.
-- Mr. Reasonable
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3551
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:08 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Pandora wrote:When people say that purpose of life is to pursue joy or happiness and that life is about pursuing sunshine and rainbows or what not, they are forgetting the fundamental nature of life itself, and so metaphorically speaking, are moving away from life; at least in their perception. It's a type of self delusion, or self numbing. In that case, it is a choice.


Since joy is merely what follows when a goal is attained, saying that "the purpose of life to pursue joy" means that it does not matter what kind of goals you are pursuing so as long you can attain them. It merely indicates that people are degenerating in the sense that they are losing those tendencies that were cultivated by their ancestors. You can say they no longer have customs. If you have customs then you can't pursue any kind of goal. Customs impose restrictions on what you can do and what you cannot do. Without them, anything goes. Wanna be a homosexual? No problem. Wanna do drugs? No problem. Wanna fuck around? No problem. And I don't think that people "freely choose" to degenerate. They degenerate for a complex set of reasons that remain largely unknown to us. It's a necessity. A necessity that people may and often do dislike but still a course that has to take its place. Everything has a beginning and an end.


I don't agree with a lot of this.

For example, joy does not always follow when a mentally ill person obtains a goal, they just may say "Now what, I accomplished this and I still will die, my life is futile."
Also, customs are somewhat irrelevant to a social genetic degeneration. What you have to pay the most attention to is dating/mating habits, and aesthetics taste. For instance I think Bandai Namco has very good aesthetics. But some scrub on the street, may prefer to play Need For Speed Nitro which is vomit inducing.

Also, the reason for social degeneration is not unknown, but obvious. Females are the deciders of the gene pool. If females lose taste, then the gene pool degenerates. And partially this is exposed with fast food. If a female enjoys McDonalds over Whole Foods she is a degenerate and will likely breed degenerates.
Also, legal systems. Legal systems enforce degeneracy. When it is illegal to fight someone or punch someone in the face, noone has any respect or kindness. And normally, people like this would be exterminated or killed off. But somehow they make it to the gene pool because noone is allowed to fight them.
Lets say the girl of your dreams decides to date this skinny, pathetic weakling runt over you. What can you do about it? Nothing, she will block you on Facebook, protected by the Legal System. And you cannot physically attack or threaten the pathetic weakling who stole your girlfriend.
Nor can you use your intelligence to outsmart a female who doesn't want you.
Generally, most females are not interested in intelligent males, since most females crave power and control, not someone who can outsmart them. Thus intelligent males are forced to outsmart females. However this is prevented in modern times. Thus the amount of intelligent people being born and successfully breeding is rare/low.
Neitzche, Tesla, etc were intelligent and could easily have got a female to fall into their trap. But since traps are illegal in the Legal System, most intelligent males just go around aimlessly getting rejected over and over, since they are not allowed to use their intelligence to trap a female.
By trap a female, I mean something along the lines of David Bowie in Labyrinth.

Drugs. The war on drugs has the opposite effect, it makes people rebellious. People do not want to feel like they have no choice. so they choose to do drugs. A more effective technique would be "drug shaming", ie. "You can do drugs, but if you do you are a fucking retard and not my friend and you ought to be euthanized".

However there is hope I think, with improves in genetics technology.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:13 pm

Also, there are two social forces I should point out.
Feminine, and Masculine.

Yin and yang is actually incorrect, feminine is not chaos.
A better analogy would be Cat and Dog.

Cat, feminine.
This is power and control, manipulation, beauty, meekness, "The Future", revenge, and creativity. Evolved.
Ie. this is White.
Dog, masculine
This is scatterbrainedness, mediocre taste, atheleticism, loudness, "The Now" and lack of imagination. Animal.
Ie. this is Black.

In terms of dating, modern females seem to be attracted to "The Dog/Black" and not the "The Cat/White", and this is the cause of social degeneration.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8312
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:28 am

Pandora wrote:Weakness and need, but because life goes on, it has to be continuously maintained and reinforced.

Magnus wrote:Weakness = the inability to achieve a goal.
Need = that which sets goals.

I see need as weakness. What drives the opposite of weakness, strength? Need. And what is need based on? Perceived weakness. If it is not weakness, then tell me what the need is based on? You talk about goals, so why does one have to make goals in the first place?
Pandora wrote:You are disregarding qualitative differences of "how". There maybe 1001 ways to get from point A to B, but it doesn't mean they are all equal.
Magnus wrote:Probably more than 1001. And yes, they aren't equal. Nonetheless, it is our goal that determines what kind of means are permitted.
Pandora wrote:I'm taking that to you, the end justifies the means, but what of the "how"? Is that not relevant to you?

Magnus wrote:It is the end (i.e. our goal) that separates the good means from the bad means.
Note that there is such a thing as an organization of goals.
Goals can be organized in a hierarchy.
You can have to same goal and different means. Why does one choose to work for money, and the other to steal it. I say, same goal, different means. You'll probably say different means because of different goals. (I think you are seeing presence of additional goals too, which determine means).

If all I want to do is consume something then any kind of path that lets me eat will be good. This means that eating my own parents is good too. But if there is a higher goal that demands that my parents remain alive then it's a bad thing to eat my parents.
Well, I don't think of the second part as a "goal", but simply as one of the means excluded in reaching the first goal. I don't think most people have conscious hierarchy of goals in that sense. For instance, if a person's goal is to have some money and stealing it is one possible way to get it, is the only thing that would stop him from stealing a conscious presence of a higher goal? I suppose you might say that a thief does not have a superseding goal that tells him to respect other persons earnings, making it okay to steal his money, and making stealing his functioning highest goal.

So, to bring it back, basically I see that we may be saying the same thing, except you're also, for some reason, adding supplemental goals to the decision making process. For me, the means give a clue to the goals, usually. However, even deciphering goals through means is not always so simple because you can have the same means and different goals, too. For instance, Al Capone, the famous gangster, is known to have founded the first soup kitchens during the Great Depression in 1930s. What was his highest goal, or his primary drive, improving his own image or helping the unemployed? (same with rich giving to charities)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCMEzxJpQTs
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

Re: Challenge to the Agonists

Postby Pandora » Wed Oct 25, 2017 2:38 am

Ultimate Philosophy 1001 wrote:
So for example, Entertainment is an illusion. Because when you break it down you say...Why is this entertaining. It should not be entertaining. But yet if you have healthy imaginative energy, it is entertaining, as long as you dont over focus on why it should not exist.
This is the same as joy.
I'd say it acts as a distraction from reality, which provides a sense of relief. Same with fiction and fantasy.
User avatar
Pandora
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3836
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Ward 6

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users