Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

This is the place to shave off that long white beard and stop being philosophical; a forum for members to just talk like normal human beings.

Moderator: MagsJ

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:11 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
Arminius wrote:
WendyDarling wrote:You don't see your 'lil self staring down the camera with the, "I'm not playing along with this staged photo because I'd rather be reading an advanced chemistry book, so hurry up and take the picture, I have research to get back to?" :evilfun: Do you smile for pictures now?

I can't!
Or, wait.
Is there a little smile?

Image

You were a handsome little boy.

Thanks.

Arcturus Descending wrote:Was that really a smile?

A little smile only. :)

Arcturus Descending wrote:More like an "I dare you" kind of look.
Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.

Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not. :)
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arminius » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:29 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Why do you consider power and love to be antagonistic?

I have never considered power and love to be antagonistic.

This is what I have said:

Arminius wrote:
Arcturus Descending wrote:I think that love evolved (if we can use that word) as a way to not only perpetuate the human species but to save it.
There are different forms of love. I think that love is like the ocean, it ebbs and it flows

Your daughter was beautiful. It also says something about you that you would not insert your children online when they are young. I can never understand the human's need to show off their children rather than to protect them.

You are also loyal to your friends I have found.

Thank you very much.

You are right.

The evolution (if we can use that word) of love is not only a way to perpetuate the human species but also to save it. We can observe this process in those families where parents protect their children as much as it is necessary for the children’s development.

Love is needed for both phylogenesis and ontogenesis. Without love there is no evolution, at least not for "higher“ living beings. The "higher“ the living beings are, the more love they need.

Here on ILP are many (too many?) members who are saying that the will to power is the only aspect when it comes to evolution; but that is only one side of the evolutionary "coin“, the other one is the will to love.

We should have both a realistic and an idealistic interpretation of evolution. Power is always present, but love is not. So, it is more necessary to support, to demand, to premote love. How should we do this? - [1] By practising love; [2] by enlighten others and clarifying what love means; (3) by fighting all enemies of love (how? => [1] and [2]).

You can find the most lack of love in materialistic/hedonistic times where the individual coolness is a fashion and mostly nothing else than hidden weakness because of the lack of love.

No consideration of antagonism between power and love!

Loveable people can be powerful, powerful people can be loveable.

But there are many (too many?) people who have diceded upon only one of the two .
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:20 pm

Yes, you did say that we should have both.

But consider this. Consider a father who loves his son. What does that mean? It means that the father cares for the wellbeing of his son. It means that he wants his son to be powerful. And not only that, it means that he is motivated to do whatever has to be done in order to make his son as powerful as possible. So love, at least in this isolated case, has to do with power. But not necessarily your own power.

Also, in order to be able to love, you must have some sort of power. You cannot love if you have no power.

Power can be used for the purpose of destruction. You show no love to that which you destroy. You kill an animal or a man. That's power but that's no love. So power isn't necessarily love but love is necessarily power.
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: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:24 pm

Maybe you are saying that power should be used to create and not merely to destroy.
I can agree with that.
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: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby WendyDarling » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:56 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, you did say that we should have both.

But consider this. Consider a father who loves his son. What does that mean? It means that the father cares for the wellbeing of his son. It means that he wants his son to be powerful. And not only that, it means that he is motivated to do whatever has to be done in order to make his son as powerful as possible. So love, at least in this isolated case, has to do with power. But not necessarily your own power.

Also, in order to be able to love, you must have some sort of power. You cannot love if you have no power.

Power can be used for the purpose of destruction. You show no love to that which you destroy. You kill an animal or a man. That's power but that's no love. So power isn't necessarily love but love is necessarily power.


Love can be destruction if it is a mercy killing, putting someone or an animal you love out of its misery.
I AM OFFICIALLY IN HELL!

I live my philosophy, it's personal to me and people who engage where I live establish an unspoken dynamic, a relationship of sorts, with me and my philosophy.

Cutting folks for sport is a reality for the poor in spirit. I myself only cut the poor in spirit on Tues., Thurs., and every other Sat.
User avatar
WendyDarling
Heroine
 
Posts: 6324
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 8:52 am
Location: Hades

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:37 pm

I am not very fond of putting people or animals out of their misery by killing them. But I guess you can say that is love.
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: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:02 pm

Just a few days ago, I decided to ignore my aunt's cry for help. She was apparently in deep pain. She was beggining to be turned around (she couldn't do it due to paraplegia.) I choose not do so. In fact, I even considered telling her directly that I didn't want to do so. Mind you, I didn't want her to die or to suffer. I just didn't want to give into her whims. I thought she was quite whimsical. After two hours of ignoring her I decided to help her. Her consciousness started to degrade at a very fast rate every since. She died three days later. She had a metastasis, so I was aware that she was going to die, but not this fast. I feel a little bit of guilt. Perhaps if I helped her that night she wouldn't have died . . . that thought haunts me in my dreams. But I am not sure that it is justified. She refused professional help and she relied too much on me. I am no nurse. I wanted to help. But I didn't want to offer her the kind of "help" she asked for. Sometimes, you want to let people suffer. It is the right choice. She denied that she was sick. In fact, she denied she was in pain. She didn't want me to hire a professional nurse to take care of her. There was no other choice.
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: 3564
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby gib » Mon Nov 13, 2017 11:34 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Just a few days ago, I decided to ignore my aunt's cry for help. She was apparently in deep pain. She was beggining to be turned around (she couldn't do it due to paraplegia.) I choose not do so. In fact, I even considered telling her directly that I didn't want to do so. Mind you, I didn't want her to die or to suffer. I just didn't want to give into her whims. I thought she was quite whimsical. After two hours of ignoring her I decided to help her. Her consciousness started to degrade at a very fast rate every since. She died three days later. She had a metastasis, so I was aware that she was going to die, but not this fast. I feel a little bit of guilt. Perhaps if I helped her that night she wouldn't have died . . . that thought haunts me in my dreams. But I am not sure that it is justified. She refused professional help and she relied too much on me. I am no nurse. I wanted to help. But I didn't want to offer her the kind of "help" she asked for. Sometimes, you want to let people suffer. It is the right choice. She denied that she was sick. In fact, she denied she was in pain. She didn't want me to hire a professional nurse to take care of her. There was no other choice.


Magnus, I think this shows that you have a very strong resolve, but that you also have a living conscience within you.

^ This incident may (or it may not) be a case where the two have come into conflict. I think you have to decide what counts for you, at least in this case, as strength and weakness.
My thoughts | My art | My music | My poetry

It is impossible for a human being to go through life not thinking irrationally even if they think of themselves as rational
Also just as irrational decisions are not always bad then rational ones are not always good no matter what the intention
- surreptitious75

The rating of rationality can be higher and always is higher than the person trying to be rational. Rationality is less emotional than the person delivering it.
- encode_decode

Is that a demon slug in your stomach or are you just happy to see me?
- Rick Sanchez
User avatar
gib
resident exorcist
 
Posts: 8506
Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 10:25 pm
Location: lost (don't try to find me)

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arcturus Descending » Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:32 pm

More like an "I dare you" kind of look.

Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not. :)


We would probably need the concert of many or at least a few voices from the past carried into the present to establish that. Does past behavior necessarily determine future behavior albeit past *experience* may very well.
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: 14942
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Ecstasy on Earth.

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:03 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Yes, you did say that we should have both.

But consider this. Consider a father who loves his son. What does that mean? It means that the father cares for the wellbeing of his son. It means that he wants his son to be powerful. And not only that, it means that he is motivated to do whatever has to be done in order to make his son as powerful as possible. So love, at least in this isolated case, has to do with power. But not necessarily your own power.

Also, in order to be able to love, you must have some sort of power. You cannot love if you have no power.

Power can be used for the purpose of destruction. You show no love to that which you destroy. You kill an animal or a man. That's power but that's no love. So power isn't necessarily love but love is necessarily power.
Magnus Anderson wrote:Maybe you are saying that power should be used to create and not merely to destroy.
I can agree with that.

Fine.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arminius » Wed Nov 15, 2017 12:35 pm

Arcturus Descending wrote:
More like an "I dare you" kind of look.

Intense and precocious though I may be wrong.


Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not. :)


We would probably need the concert of many or at least a few voices from the past carried into the present to establish that. Does past behavior necessarily determine future behavior albeit past *experience* may very well.

Since my puberty I have been looking younger, first one, then two, three, four, five and at last even ten years younger than I should according to my respective real age. But that has nothing to do with precociousness. Precociousness has to do with the predisposition of being precocious; so it is more a question of the genotype than of the phenotype. Or do you mean that the look, outwardness or other formality of the appearance can clearly show precociousness. Is, for instance, a full beard of an fourteen year old "boy" really a sign of precociousness? If so, then I have never been precocious. I was one of the last three or four (out of 40) pupils in my school class who became pubescent. I think that the word "precociousness" means something different, namely something that has to do with the behavior. Relating to this I can likely say that I was precocious. I do not know for sure. Therefore I said:

Perhaps, perhaps not. I abstain from such a judgement. May others judge whether I was precocious or not.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Official: Post a Picture of Yourself

Postby Arminius » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:58 pm

Trying to understand what you exactly meant by "precociousness", I googled the word and found not only other words, but also some photos. :wink:

Does one of the following four photos show - more or less - the meaning of "precociousness"?
If so: Which one ist it?

ImageImageImageImage

In every case one can find also other reasons (e.g.: autism, wrong or unidirectional education) why those kids are what we think they are. They are not or not necessarily precocious. Or are they (according to you)?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5684
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Previous

Return to Non-Philosophical Chat



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users