+- The Lurker Lounge Forums (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums)
+-- Forum: The Lurker Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The Lounge (https://www.lurkerlounge.com/forums/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: This world is not ours (/thread-6455.html)
This world is not ours - whyBish - 05-18-2005
Abramelin,May 18 2005, 02:09 PM Wrote:Regarding morality,nobody has a right to own anybody.
Humans are not objects,they are subjects.
[right][snapback]77694[/snapback][/right]
Good. Now this is at least starting to get somewhere closer to a discussion :)
Why does nobody have the right to own anybody? I did not see this in your list of axioms... in fact, if I gave somebody to someone else, then (by your axioms) they are owned by somebody... as long as you don't give them to their parent (whom created them thus violating axiom 2 :P ) ... to be fair however, you didn't say that your list of axioms was complete...
As to the second statement, why are Humans subjects instead of objects. What makes them this way, and where (if anywhere) can a line be drawn? Apes? Animals? Plants and viruses? In-organic compounds? It seems that you are implying that subjects can't be owned, yet from what you have provided and my claim that everything is a subject (unless you define subject specifically??) the conclusion would be that nothing can be owned at all. This does not contradict any of your axioms, but does ~feel~ a bit absurd... comments?
This world is not ours - Rinnhart - 05-18-2005
Ghostiger,May 17 2005, 05:22 PM Wrote:You deserve an insult(But Im afraid of ban so Ill just show how you aare wrong - even more.).
"That 'men are born free' is not an axiom . It is a moral fact.But you can't prove it with logic because logic has nothing to do with it."
If you cant prove it with logic and you accept it as fact it is by definition - axiomatic.(well it could simply be wrong, but well ignore that case).
[right][snapback]77695[/snapback][/right]
Fact of the matter is, my good sirs, it's all a moot point when someone stabs the guy who made the chair and takes it.
Didn't Nietzsche say "God is dead! And we are his murders!" a hundred and twenty years ago?
THERE IS NO BLOOD IN THIS STONE.
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
Abramelin,May 17 2005, 06:36 PM Wrote:Oh I get it.How does it feel to need a mental laxative? Put words into someone else's mouth.
Philosophy is futile and politics and economy rule over it.
Rephrased so that you may grasp the concept, a Philosophy's futility is revealed when It tries to reach Its ideal End, at which point It will inevitably fail by running into application by imperfect Man, and by encountering competing Philosophies. Funny, we are back to Conflict, as in the conflict of ideas, which is where we got off the train of thought last time. Your baseline "harmonious perfection of Nature that gets spoiled by unworthy Man" breeds Conflict, even in Ideas. In case you were unsure, there is some Hegel sprinkled in there.
Quote: Without morality and ethics (which are derived from philosophy),you wouldn't be free if you were black in the America of proslavery,you wouldn't have have the same rights as men if you were a woman before 20th century,etc..philosophy helped to improve your rights and economy+politics were influenced by it. [right][snapback]77688[/snapback][/right]
Like "Nature," "Philosophy" is an abstract. Please frame your conversation with "which flavor of philosophy" you refer to. They are not interchangeable.
The root of the futility of the philosopher, or someone like yourself who asserts philosophy as superior to other disciplines or endeavors, lies in the arrogance, the presumed superiority of Thought and Theory over Deed and Action, and in the frustration of practical necessity to apply ideas to the mundane life lived by the great unwashed. (Life is a team sport, so to speak.) Any philosophy, reaches its limitation short of the ideal when it isn't (or can't) be put into practice. As Clausewitz observed about War, the limitations in practice of any pure "thing in itself" encounters the friction of the physical world: Nature perhaps? Since there are always modifications in Practice, Compromise defeats a pure philosophy's reach for its End via dilution, an outcome of compromise with another Philosophy, or simple physical laws.
Do not blithely ignore the requirement of action, and the synergistic combinations of action, religion and philosophy that result in societal outcomes. Philosophy without Action is like an egg without sperm: a bloody useless bit of waste.
Without Philosophy, I think we will agree that life would be less rich, and more likely less moral, less just. How is it that "philosophy" arrogates to itself an inherent superiority over other lines of endeavor? The egotism of philosphers, not some inherent value of pure thought. Did not Kant demonstrate the limitations of pure reason in his critique of reason?
The Ivory Tower is sneered at with good reason, but it is not razed to the ground. Why? Every now and again, Sturgeon' Law's 10% leaks out with the remaining excrement, a nugget of corn amongst philosophical feces that is worth harvesting to nourish lives hungry for meaning and understanding.
Philosophy is one of many tools that Man, not Nature, uses to recraft the world into an image most pleasing to Him. This recrafting is an act of Creation, and if Man creates, then Man can indeed own that part of the world he bends his crafting efforts to. Philosophy provides a direction and an initial blueprint, but absent action and will, and compromise, Philosphy in the absolute, in the abstract, amounts to futile, mental masturbation. That does not mean it can't be fun in the right context. :whistling:
Occhi
EDIT: Took a couple of insults out. Trying to keep it sorta clean.
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
Ghostiger,May 17 2005, 08:19 PM Wrote:You mean you feel this thread had substance at one point?
[right][snapback]77701[/snapback][/right]
Yes, it was intended as a troll, and the substance has been the source of innocent merriment that Abramelin has provided for us. Some folks enjoy the role of mental punching bag, so long as attention is paid.
What would I know about that, other than being a slight attention whore myself? :D
Occhi
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
Abramelin,May 17 2005, 07:09 PM Wrote:This is also right.
Life was created from water,oxygen and dust.
Why not stop mixing apples and chimpanzees? May I suggests "Water, Oxygen, and Carbon." Dust is . . . what?
Quote:Economically and politically it could be true,but concerning Morality and Ethics,it can't be.
Where do you get this bald assertion? What "can't be?" When you make a bald assertion, please develop the thought a bit to show how you support the assertion. It will make your case clearer, and possibly better.
Quote:Notice 'Bible'.  Is the Bible an argument ?
The Bible is a source of Doctrine, the foundation of a school of thought, and the framework of a Religion. Some equate that with a Philosophy, and some do not.
Quote:The only justification I can see when Man uses natural ressources is only for basic needs:Food,shelter..humans can use these ressources as long as they don't waste,destroy/kill for fun.
"Only justification?" You hypocrite. You are by your own argument unjustufied in typing this conversation on your computer, as you are supporting an unjustified use of natural resources. You are wasting energy from Nature, however electricity is getting to your PC, for fun. Minimalist is One Philosophy, not a universal moral law. The extrapolation to the Universal once again crashes to Earth.
Do you understand why a broad generalization, like the ones you keep making, is such nonsense? You need to take such statements a few steps into their logical progressions of "if then" to discover their futility. Put your brain to works, that is why God, or Nature, (I don't care which) equipped you with it.
Occhi
Edited: I have been spelling like a moron this moroning. :P
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
whyBish,May 17 2005, 11:06 PM Wrote:I think they have a more equal importance. One is the current state, one is *a* (not *the*) goal state. For "what should be" to have a practical use there needs to be a viable transition path between "what is" and "what should be". If that path is the path of 'least effort'/'lowest energy' then "what is" and "what should be" will be the same thing, but if not, then energy(/money/effort/debate/convincing) will need to be put into the system to get there. If this cost is too great then what should be will not occur.
[right][snapback]77709[/snapback][/right]
Beautifully put.
May I add that the path to "what should be" often leads to a "what is" that is slightly different from the original "should be" end state? The process then repeats, in another iteration of transition from "what now is" to "what should be next" if some one adds energy/action to the system. Otherwise, you get SSDD condition.
Occhi
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
Bah humbug.
Philosophy is all about getting drunk and making a public fool out of your self.
All this fancy talk and pretty words.
Go live in the middle of nowhere for a few years and become a hermit... Or something.
Philosophy is over rated.
Nice use of Hagel.
Now who wants a bagel? Boiled then baked.
I need more coffee.
ZzzzzZZZzzzzz
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
Rinnhart,May 18 2005, 01:10 AM Wrote:Fact of the matter is, my good sirs, it's all a moot point when someone stabs the guy who made the chair and takes it.
Didn't Nietzsche say "God is dead! And we are his murders!" a hundred and twenty years ago?
THERE IS NO BLOOD IN THIS STONE.
[right][snapback]77712[/snapback][/right]
Nietzsche did it, not The Butler? No, wait, he blamed someone else, "we' rather than "I," in typical 19th-century, Catholic* Guilt Trip fashion. So, Billy Fred was the original "societal guilt confessed axe murderer."
I'll call the Church. No, I'll call the Police. No, I'll call The Church Police! :lol:
(They really have that in Saudi Arabia.)
Occhi
*think catholic in its sense of 'universal' to get the pun, all you gentle readers out there who obey the Pope. :D There's no need to call the Spanish Inquisition.
*Loud screaming sound, then a crash. Cardinal Fang stands up, brushes off red robes, and points accusing finger at an Overcaffeinated Rogue and Rinnhart*
CF"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapons are fear, surprise, and WMD."
OR: "WMD?"
CF Yes, we stole them from Saddam right before he threatened to blow up our comfy chair.
OR "That's it, this is getting silly, I'm leaving."
*scampering, leather clad feet exit stage left*
Cardinal Fang:"Right! Now, where's this Nietzche bloke?"
*Nods, signalling for burly assistant to approach Rinnhart with the dreaded Soft Pillow . . .
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
As for the Bible, Doctrine, Philosophy, and Religion, all of them are a lot like duct tape. There is a dark side, a light side, and it's used to hold everything in the universe together.
All of them can be used as tools of opression. A thought, a Bible verse, dogmatic ideologoy, all of them are dangerous. Powerful. Take the Bible. It's a broad subject, trapped in narrow minds. A single thought can topple governments and kings. Dogmatic ideology... What can I say. When one mass of people is larger than another mass of people, their dogmatic ideology wins out and they seek to opress all those who think differently. This in turn gives creedence to the minority. Also gives credibility. Look at Christianity... The Roman persecution is what made Christianity so big... All that murder and mayhem drove the Christians out to all four corners of the map, spread them far and wide, all those whips and ravenous lions made otherwise lazy homebodies get off their fat asses and run. And in doing so, they spread the message to places that it otherwise would not have gotten. And then in classic reversal, the minority became the majority. Christians became the Romans. Er, Romans became Christians. And they persecuted everybody else and threw them to the lions, making other dogmatic ideologies duck and run for cover.
One can clearly see from this example that it is better in the long run to be the lion. You are bound to get fed. And to Hell with philosophy and all this thinking crap. All it does is give one a headache. What makes one wise and profound one day makes one look foolish and idiotic tomorrow. So it's better to have teeth and claws and just make whoever is popular today into a meal. If somebody has something profound to say, or some new school of thought to preach, or some masses they want to convert or subvert, it's all the same thing, they probably taste good.
My karma ran over your dogma. Neener neener neener.
This world is not ours - jahcs - 05-18-2005
Doc,May 18 2005, 06:54 AM Wrote:One can clearly see from this example that it is better in the long run to be the lion. You are bound to get fed.
My karma ran over your dogma. Neener neener neener.
[right][snapback]77736[/snapback][/right]
Quote:Fact of the matter is, my good sirs, it's all a moot point when someone stabs the guy who made the chair and takes it.
Might makes right. Oops, that's not quite correct. Might makes what is. Whether it should be this way or not is immaterial. When enough folks realize the mighty are wrong they rise up to lay the mighty low. Then, if the folks have no plan for after the mighty have fallen, you have a power vacuum with much gnashing of teeth and wailing by the citizenry, decrying those who had the gumption to stand up for what should be and did something about it.
And nice pun there, Doc B)
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
I only did it to hurt people. Puns are the lowest form of humour.
Might makes nothing. Empires come and go.
It's still better to be the lion.
This world is not ours - Occhidiangela - 05-18-2005
Doc,May 18 2005, 10:25 AM Wrote:I only did it to hurt people. Puns are the lowest form of humour.
Might makes nothing. Empires come and go.
It's still better to be the lion.
[right][snapback]77745[/snapback][/right]
Better to be the man. Too many lions get turned into a rug in front of a fireplace. :wacko: Can you say Weatherby Mark VI?
Occhi
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
The Lion is merely a symbolic entity you silly Rogue.
:P
This world is not ours - jahcs - 05-18-2005
The lion knawing on your leg would be the mightier in that situation.
The man in khaki shorts and a pith helmet with a Weatherby Mark VI laying on a lionskin rug would be the mightier in this case.
Having the might to effect change or resist change is relative to your opponent.
The mighty lead, the meek follow, and the ignorant just get in the way. :D
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
It is better, I think, to be the one that feeds on the change and gets the most out of it. Power comes and goes... In my life I have seen once strong powers fade away into obscurity, and new powers rise up. And those that feed off of those lost in the struggle are the only ones with any sort of guarenteed survival. Because there is always change, and always casualties of change, there is always sustenance.
It is better to feed on the dead, the casualties of change, then to let their bodies go to waste. Consume or be consumed. Gain strength or die. Do what you must, when you must, to always make sure you come out of whatever situation happens in the position with the most to gain. It's that simple. Power comes and goes, but change is constant. And therein lies true power.
Who's up for an expresso?
This world is not ours - Archon_Wing - 05-18-2005
Occhidiangela,May 18 2005, 07:07 AM Wrote:Yes, it was intended as a troll, and the substance has been the source of innocent merriment that Abramelin has provided for us. Some folks enjoy the role of mental punching bag, so long as attention is paid.
What would I know about that, other than being a slight attention whore myself? :D
Occhi
[right][snapback]77731[/snapback][/right]
Ah yes, we were set to prove the fact the world is indeed not ours, but instead it's mine.
I was going to make a thread on the elitism of the Lurker Lounge, but with my slant. I wonder if people would get offended. I have not rode on the trollmobile for a while. ;)
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
Archon_Wing,May 18 2005, 02:46 PM Wrote:Ah yes, we were set to prove the fact the world is indeed not ours, but instead it's mine.
I was going to make a thread on the elitism of the Lurker Lounge, but with my slant. I wonder if people would get offended. I have not rode on the trollmobile for a while. ;)
[right][snapback]77766[/snapback][/right]
DO IT!
And I will personally craft you one of my Insane Old Man Rambles⢠free of charge.
I think the goat cheese ass gas fumes have gone to my head. I am feeling a bit weird today. Got some strange cosmic vibe going.
Isn't there some sort of fungus or something that used to infect cheese and cause dementia? And wheat too...
Er wait... I have always been like this. Never mind. I don't know what I was thinking.
This world is not ours - Chaerophon - 05-18-2005
From the "why do I waste my time" file (read to the bottom for the "I'm not elitist" disclaimer)...
A suggestion:
1.) as a first step, try typing "design argument" into google.
2.) read and realize that what you are producing, if it is original thought at all, is incoherent crap.
3.) read some more. This is how real philosophers think.
4.) ponder.
5.) think some more.
6.) look at some of the other arguments/positions that are mentioned in the first ten pages of the google search post. They may not directly relate to design, i.e. Locke on property, etc.
7.) now, if you think that you can, make a decent argument.
It would be fine if you had realized that your original post fell short of its intent. If you hadn't made out your points to be absolute proof, I wouldn't be throwing real philosophy at you. It's fair to ponder such things without a grounding in philosophy; however, to assume that you are an authority is ludicrous. I couldn't even finish reading your post, as it was absolutely riddled with untested assumptions and incoherent statments. Nobody here would fault you for that if you could at least realize that you haven't quite got it figured out. Unfortunately, you insist on pushing the issue. Until you understand what real philosophy looks like, I fear that you will continue to make an ass of yourself.
This world is not ours - jahcs - 05-18-2005
Doc,May 18 2005, 10:46 AM Wrote:It is better, I think, to be the one that feeds on the change and gets the most out of it. Power comes and goes... In my life I have seen once strong powers fade away into obscurity, and new powers rise up. And those that feed off of those lost in the struggle are the only ones with any sort of guarenteed survival. Because there is always change, and always casualties of change, there is always sustenance.
It is better to feed on the dead, the casualties of change, then to let their bodies go to waste. Consume or be consumed. Gain strength or die. Do what you must, when you must, to always make sure you come out of whatever situation happens in the position with the most to gain. It's that simple. Power comes and goes, but change is constant. And therein lies true power.
Who's up for an expresso?
[right][snapback]77756[/snapback][/right]
Sounds more like a hyena, vulture, fungus, or war profiteer. :P You must have the strength of will and position available to not be drawn into the struggle between the other powers and the strength of stomach to feast upon carrion.
I understand your premise. We are agreeing, just in different ways. The most mighty have the furthest to fall and are targets for the next guy in line. It is safer to be farther down the ladder or on a different ladder altogether. I think you are looking at the grand scale of things and I am looking at the individual events.
This world is not ours - Doc - 05-18-2005
Chaerophon,May 18 2005, 02:59 PM Wrote:A suggestion:
1.) type "design argument" into google.
2.) read and realize that what you are producing, if it is original thought at all, is incoherent crap.
3.) read up. This is how real philosophers think.
4.) ponder.
5.) think some more.
6.) post if you think that you can make a decent argument.
It would be fine if you had realized that your original post fell short of its intent. In fact, I couldn't even finish it, as it was absolutely riddled with untested assumptions and incoherent statments. Unfortunately, you insist on pushing the issue. Until you understand what real philosophy looks like, I fear that you will continue to make an ass of yourself.
[right][snapback]77772[/snapback][/right]
You mean to tell me that philosophy has fallen into using it's looks like some cheap harlot? Why, that crusty old bitch can't possibly get by on her looks...
So tell me, what look is in this year for philosophy? Or shall we just call her Sophie... Would the Nihlistic Goth statement be fashionable and hip, or something, I dunno, something grand and steeped in tradition... Like capitialism and consumerism and the mindsets involved? We could dress her up like the great ol' Whore of Babylon. Oh look! Bulls on parade! Now with stylish consumption obcessed attention whores riding bareback. Or is that bear back? Would the Whore of Babylon do business with both the bulls and the bears? Did I just open a can of worms?
Brazen hussy... I know what real Philosophy looks like... She damn sure aint a blonde... That's artificial stupidity right there, the curtains don't match the carpet. She's a redhead, and let me tell you, nothing out does the coppercrotch.
What? Why is everybody staring at me?