Mate, I'm telling you, you got screwed... what's worse is that you're actually happy about it >:O >:O >:O
Think about it... $130!! How are you going to make good on that investment? Will this book help you make more dough? Will it give you knowledge that will be so useful to you that it will merit $130? What can you do with that knowledge? What change does that knowledge (help) create in your life?
If you like buying expensive books, you might as well buy this one. At least with this one, you can probably make the money back in about... 1 month? And from there, it's all profit
Man, reading this just made me barf a little.
After a few seconds, I started reading it with the Shamwow guy voice.
Good Heavens! You have given her an eye and a tooth, how about an Ear shot?
Next thing you know there'll be an image of him twerking his coat hanger. Besides, I am the show-off here. I call this, Walking to Work in the Morning from my Eyes Collection. Taking things to a new creative height.
You want me to sing a song to my dog? My dog doesn't have the best hearing. Or do you just want to hear my Australian accent?
This isn't about getting to know you or to hear what you're sure is an amazing accent. It's just that we want to know your dog is loved and properly sung to.
I found him pandering after a while, sorry couldn't make it through the first page you linked. But, I definitely liked his parallel between philosophers who cannot cease their sadomasochistic pursuit of knowledge and wisdom by gorging of the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
PhysicsForums. But I post the same stuff here as I post there, bar philosophical topics which aren't tolerated too much there. I say high powered because your required to present factual evidence in support of most claims made over there. So, it can take some time to read through studies or papers if you want to present a compelling case and get quality responses.
Not like I don't get that here; but, there's just a different methodology with science and philosophy.
Not like I don't get that here; but, there's just a different methodology with science and philosophy.
Although I hate emojis with a deep, philosophical, esthetic, and linguistic fervor, I've decided I need to use them because people have trouble telling when I'm trying to be funny or ironic. Forgot to put one on my post. Just edited it.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 11, 2018 at 20:43#1427800 likes
(L) I am going home to Chicago to see my Dad in February! The songs at Christmas about "I'll be home for Christmas" just about broke my heart but I have made it through so I can give him all the stored up hugs I have for him. My Uncle says that my Dad is slowing down, drifting out of conversations and is turning inward a bit. What better medicine than to have your over zealous, want to go for a walk puppy, cute as a button daughter fly in just to see YOU? (L)
What is the emojis for "irony alert"? or "humor that sounds sarcastic, is pretty much, but isn't intended to cut too deeply"? "just too stupid to be allowed to live"? or "I don't like your emoji"? The pallet seems to be too limited.
MIT Technology Review:What would such an irony symbol look like? Fortunately, the need for an irony sign is not new, and the question has been pondered and answered. In 1899, the French poet Alcanter de Brahms said that ironists should always use a kind of upside down question mark: “le petit signe flagellateur.” But the novelist Vladimir Nabokov answered the question best, decades before social networks. He suggested the “sly smile” of a horizontal parenthesis.
What would such an irony symbol look like? Fortunately, the need for an irony sign is not new, and the question has been pondered and answered. In 1899, the French poet Alcanter de Brahms said that ironists should always use a kind of upside down question mark: “le petit signe flagellateur.” But the novelist Vladimir Nabokov answered the question best, decades before social networks. He suggested the “sly smile” of a horizontal parenthesis. — MIT Technology Review
I personally like [Fe] or [?], but using them makes me feel pompous. The male symbol is also the alchemical symbol for iron. I don't hate [¿]. I like to put brackets around it so there's no mistaking it as something else. I'm willing to agree to use it if others are. If we use parentheses instead of brackets, (¿), it looks a little like Jimmy Durante, who nobody but you, me, and a few others here has ever heard of.
You fool! You dare challenge me to a duel? After spending all day in this wet summer rain, I decided to sing some Norah Jones and bumped into a Magpie.
I call this Kiss My Magpie Arse, from the Peacock Dreams Collection.
Love Magpies. Members of the crow family. In case you can't tell, I love crows. That reminds me, I need to add some birds to the "Beautiful Things" discussion.
I was surprised there were magpies in Australia. I looked it up. Australian magpies are not directly related to those found in the US or Europe. Still, you can see why immigrants from Europe would name them that.
Reply to T Clark You also would not want to piss them off in Spring; typical Aussies, we like our space and if you invade it we will freaking swoop you.
Bye China. Can't say I miss you much. Nice buses though.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 13, 2018 at 21:36#1435160 likes
@Bitter Crank
Wosret is doing okay. I talked to him last week and told him he was missed. (L) and while we are on the topic Mayor of Simpleton, Mongrel and LandLady are all doing well too (L)
Reply to TimeLineYour voice is like a combination of Fergie and Jesus, and when you sang, you took on the form of a unicorn. https://youtu.be/3YenRKzGNHY. The bar has been set, but I'm going to blow everyone away. I just have to figure out how. How? How God? How?
The bar has been set, but I'm going to blow everyone away. I just have to figure out how. How? How God? How?
How, indeed! If you can film your feet getting pedicured by fish and singing Achy Breaky Heart while pretending to be Sean Connery, I may be at risk. Even my singing a high-pitched whisper with the phone up to my face as I film a bird butt would seem all but pointless.
No, not insomnia - it's the gradual shift from normal sleep time. I don't like it, but I haven't gotten it under control. I slept from 10: 30 pm to 1:30 am, then woke up -- wide awake. I'll probably have to take a sleeping pill for a few evenings, get to sleep early, then wake up early. Hopefully that will get me into a more normal sleep cycle.
Ahh I see. That happens to me sometimes, and it's the hardest thing to take back control over.
I was ruuning to my car and it was really cold and I had no shoes due to poverty and I stubbed my toe. I called an ambulance and spent three days in ICU and will be transferred to a nursing home for several decades of intensive rehab followed by additional retraining where I must be retaught how to speak, walk, and juggle. Here's the photo. Wish me luck.
Reply to Hanover After the evidence presented, I reckon that you were running from someone's husband, and you had no time to get your shoes while making your escape... So do tell us, what were you really up to? >:)
Reply to Agustino And he had no clothes on so he got frost bite on his toes fingers and tongue, which accounts for the long rehab. I wonder what else he damaged running around naked. :(
So what really happened is that TimeLine came home to find me stinking of herring and she assumed the worst. She had already drunk half a bottle of gin to herself (refer to video where she sings to a magpie for proof), so she grabs a skillet with day old bacon and congealed lard and chases me until we both spill out of the trailer, with me striking my head on the clothes dryer in the lawn. I see red, so I throw a spark plug at her, striking her in the mouth, luckily to where she was already missing a tooth. The rage horniness overtakes us both and we begin to roll passionately under the trailer and I strike my toe on the lawn mower parts I keep under there. She held my toe tightly as we both drifted off to sleep.
chases me until we both spill out of the trailer, with me striking my head on the clothes dryer in the lawn.
we begin to roll passionately under the trailer and I strike my toe on the lawn mower parts I keep under there.
And there is the proof that Hanover is trailer trash. :s
So what really happened is that TimeLine came home to find me stinking of herring and she assumed the worst. She had already drunk half a bottle of gin to herself (refer to video where she sings to a magpie for proof) so she grabs a skillet with day old bacon and congealed lard and chases me until we both spill out of the trailer, with me striking my head on the clothes dryer in the lawn. I see red, so I throw a spark plug at her, striking her in the mouth, luckily to where she was already missing a tooth. The rage horniness overtakes us both and we begin to roll passionately under the trailer and I strike my toe on the lawn mower parts I keep under there. She held my toe tightly as we both drifted off to sleep.
This was a rather funny episode in the Netherlands to be honest but I do think it reflects a cultural difference. It's quite well-established that Trump lies repeatedly and to parliament as well. In the Netherlands the latter is a political death sentence, regardless of the topic. Ministers have been fired or had to quit over incorrect filing for travel reimbursements (like having your kids brought to school in the company car). It wasn't so much the behaviour itself but the fact they denied it when it did happen.
I think one of the detrimental effects of having only two-parties and a system where the winner takes all, there aren't enough checks and balances because the winner (and his party) don't need to fear any type of reprisal. Although having 20 political parties is probably going overboard, a more pluralistic system just might be what the US political system needs to regain integrity.
And even then, the Dutch system isn't that good either... just not as bad. :(
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 15, 2018 at 11:48#1441300 likes
Is anyone else the slightest bit unsettled about the false alarm in Hawaii? :-O
I think one of the detrimental effects of having only two-parties and a system where the winner takes all, there aren't enough checks and balances because the winner (and his party) don't need to fear any type of reprisal. Although having 20 political parties is probably going overboard, a more pluralistic system just might be what the US political system needs to regain integrity.
I don't intend this as criticism, just an expression of curiosity. I can understand why people in other countries are interested in the US's behavior in the world. We can be a bull in the china shop or even a turd in the swimming pool. Our economic behavior and performance has a major effect on other countries' economies. What I don't understand is why so many people around the world care about what goes on inside our borders - our popular culture, politics, social issues, celebrities. I love my country, but I don't pay as much attention as a lot of people from overseas do.
TV, film, and theater acting in other English-speaking countries - UK, Canada, Australia - are so consistently good compared to American. European food is so much better. As far as I can tell, in any small town in Belgium, France, or Germany, you can get a wonderful lunch sitting at a the same café or restaurant where local people are eating theirs. The ways people live and think in other countries are so interesting. German is such a wonderful language - faust hand schuh means "fist hand shoe" which means "mitten" for God's sake. Shadenfreude!
I live in one of the areas in the US where Europeans immigrated first. Around here, a house built in 1680 is a big deal. When I visited my brother in France in the 1980s, he lived in a normal, nothing special house in a small suburban town that was older than that. That's not even including Roman ruins, Celtic monuments, 30,000 year old cave paintings.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 15, 2018 at 19:48#1442230 likes
As I said, I love it here. The US has so much going on. Spending time in Alabama is like spending time in another country in some ways, and I don't mean that in an ironic or condescending way. The culture is different than Massachusetts, but the people are friendly and interesting. Too hot, and they have boiled peanuts, but hey, nowhere's perfect. As you say, we have nice leaves here in New England. I've never been overseas in fall, aren't there pretty leaves there too?
I don't intend this as criticism, just an expression of curiosity. I can understand why people in other countries are interested in the US's behavior in the world. We can be a bull in the china shop or even a turd in the swimming pool. Our economic behavior and performance has a major effect on other countries' economies. What I don't understand is why so many people around the world care about what goes on inside our borders - our popular culture, politics, social issues, celebrities. I love my country, but I don't pay as much attention as a lot of people from overseas do.
I'm interested in US politics due to its influence. It's external politics are influenced by the internal so I don't really see them separately.
The US to me is culturally interesting due to its capabilities to foster excellence in many areas and yet, from a Dutch perspective, fail in many social areas. Universal healthcare and socio-economic inequality being obvious differences. The peace of mind of not worrying about bills and your job when you become gravely ill is pretty much priceless. In other words, on average I think a lot of political choices are pretty stupid and that ties in with my political interests - how a society that nurtures so many leaders in different fields leave so many behind.
The peace of mind of not worrying about bills and your job when you become gravely ill is pretty much priceless.
I agree. The amazing thing to me is that universal health care has been on the table since the early 1900s here, but it still hasn't made it. Truman in the 50s tried. We got Medicare, for people over 65, in the 60s with Johnson. Nixon tried in the 70s. Clinton tried in the 90s. Obama finally got something passed in 2009. It is still up in the air whether the zealots will be able to scuttle it.
I've never been overseas in fall, aren't there pretty leaves there too?
The dying trees are wonderful here in Yorkshire too :) But I loved visiting New England in the fall (as you fellows say in autumn), two decades ago now. I've always been fascinated with the USA, my first political protest was against your Vietnam war, met my first American girlfriend in Brussels when I was 20, I visited Berkeley when I was 21...Now in much later life I've been married to an American for 10 years. We might have lived there, in Portland OR, had it not been for the health care issue which partly decided that we live over here in the UK - she's still slightly amazed that you can just roll up to the doctor's surgery and get treated for anything without anyone asking for your insurance details, even though we Brits are going frantic about how underfunded the damn health service is.
Too hot, and they have boiled peanuts, but hey, nowhere's perfect.
You take a large old oil drum, and I suppose you clean it out the best you can, then you put a propane torch under it, throw some raw peanuts in there, dump 1000 pounds of salt into the water, boil it for 3000 hours on the side of the road, and scoop them into individual sacks and sell them to motorists passing by. They sort of taste like slimy, salty peas or something. They definitely don't taste nutty. I do think they're better than roasted.
Alabama (...) the people are friendly and interesting.
That's because you're a tourist and are presumably spending money. Having lived in the South, do realize that Southern hospitality often times falls away if you're a Yank trying to settle down there.
Deleted UserJanuary 15, 2018 at 22:08#1442810 likes
That's because you're a tourist and are presumably spending money. Having lived in the South, do realize that Southern hospitality often times falls away if you're a Yank trying to settle down there.
I lived in southern Virginia on the NC border for three years while I was in high school. There's no doubt I did not fit in, but at that point in my life, I didn't really fit in anywhere. I spent 5 months in Tuscaloosa for work a few years ago. As I said, I liked the people and it was interesting. I wouldn't want to live there, I wouldn't fit in. I'm too pushy, noisy, opinionated, and liberal. And I talk really fast.
Unfortunately, I am not a major fan of barbecue, so there was also no haute cuisine in Tuscaloosa. There was a wonderful Chinese restaurant and a very good Indian one. And several very terrible "Meat and Three" restaurants - real southern food. @Hanover - do you have them in Georgia? Two Italian restaurants - one local and one Olive Garden. OG was the better of the two.
As I tell everyone, the most important thing about any job site is the restaurants nearby.
Southern hospitality usually is limited by the fact that many small towns are insulated and the people aren't mobile. You will get superficial niceness beyond your expectations, but unless your people (as they say) are connected someway, it'll be hard to get full acceptance, but I'd assume I'd never break in to Boston society either. Also, being loud and abrasive doesn't doesn't work well in a society that is sticky sweet.
And, so you know, there is the south and there is Atlanta, which some consider a hell hole and others an oasis of civilization. I'm an Atlanta Jew, so I don't fit in so well in Appalachacholilala County quite so well.
At a Christmas party in rural Georgia recently, I saw this interesting conversation piece hanging on a dish towel:
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 15, 2018 at 23:28#1443110 likes
Reply to T Clark I didn't know what to think when I tried mustard barbecue in South Carolina. I'm vegetarian now, so the idea is even more ghastly.
Reply to Buxtebuddha I actually like the mustard based BBQ sauce. I understand it's from the German settlers in the area. What is digusting is the mayonaisse based white BBQ sauce of Alabama.
And several very terrible "Meat and Three" restaurants - real southern food.
Meat and three is a staple. Fried Chicken, fried okra, baked macaroni and cheese, and collard greens would be a fine example. 3000 calories for $6. Can't beat it. And don't forget the iced sweet tea.
Meat and three is a staple. Fried Chicken, fried okra, baked macaroni and cheese, and collard greens would be a fine example. 3000 calories for $6. Can't beat it. And don't forget the iced sweet tea.
Other choices - mashed potatoes made from powder, canned banana pudding, hamburg "steak" fried to the consistency of asphalt pavement with brown gelatinous "gravy". The one thing I always liked was cabbage - hard to get it in regular restaurants and hard to destroy. Oh, and every meal comes with dry, tasteless cornbread.
I didn't know what to think when I tried mustard barbecue in South Carolina. I'm vegetarian now, so the idea is even more ghastly.
I didn't dislike the barbecue. There were some good places and I like brisket and ribs. I just don't like them enough to go there more than once or twice a month.
Reply to T Clark Haha, yep, you've enjoyed the cuisine. I always get the roll, not the cornbread. Those things are pure cornmeal and I think they pour bacon grease into them or something. They're the heaviest bread you'll ever find.
Haha, yep, you've enjoyed the cuisine. I always get the roll, not the cornbread. Those things are pure cornmeal and I think they pour bacon grease into them or something. They're the heaviest bread you'll ever find.
Actually, I've been a little unfair. The City Café in Northport, which is just north of the Black Warrior River from Tuscaloosa, is not bad. They open at 4 am for goodness sakes. Close at 2:30 pm. Downtown Northport has a bit of charm.
I'd assume I'd never break in to Boston society either.
I don't know if you've been up north, especially in the Boston area. There are colleges and high-tech industry everywhere. There aren't that many places left with real local personality. Even South Boston and the North End, bastions of Irish and Italian working class community, are full of what we used to call Yuppies.
There really isn't much "society" here, especially in the suburbs where I live. Educated technical people fit right in. There are places for artists.
Reply to TimeLine The only way to get a guy to do what you want is by making him think you'll have sex with him. Step up your game and you'll have sparkling toilets. Let's see what you can do.
The only way to get a guy to do what you want is by making him think you'll have sex with him. Step up your game and you'll have sparkling toilets. Let's see what you can do.
There are five of us in the house and it is massive, but it was the guy who left that left the room in such a disgusting state, the room I have taken. We all get along really well - a house of professional board gamers - but it is really eye-opening about how much I need to adapt to the male presence. Like, not taking your fucked-up advice. And wearing pants.
Reply to Akanthinos So true and it has been so much fun staying here. It's not a party house and we're all full-time workers, respecting each others space and privacy, but we just click when we are together. My bestie also lives here and because we both have a spot in the local community garden, we've been making so many different condiments.
Reply to Benkei Kind of defeats the purpose when the video is not available in my country.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2018 at 11:11#1444900 likes
Check this: I make plans to get out of the ranch and away from my Mother In Law for a couple days, Wooo Hooo!!! Right? Then yesterday morning she decides she is going to go up North until Thursday when I get back. Argggggggggggggghhhhhhhh >:O
Like, not taking your fucked-up advice. And wearing pants.
Fine, do it your way, but my way would have been so much more entertaining to hear about. Do you play stupid board games like Trouble, geeky ones like Risk or real ones like chess?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2018 at 11:44#1445120 likes
Okay we can start with an easier song:
There's something happening here
what it is aint exactly clear
there's a man with a gun over there
tellin me I got to be 'ware
I think its time we
stop
Fine, do it your way, but my way would have been so much more entertaining to hear about. Do you play stupid board games like Trouble, geeky ones like Risk or real ones like chess?
Backgammon is my favourite. With money. And nuts. I once did a stretch of five hours with an overweight Russian guy who had a thick layer of puffy skin under his eyes that one would think he never slept. I play serious chess, but not everyone is into this I'm afraid.
Reply to TimeLine I used to love Operation, but then I had my 7th birthday and it was all sex sex sex by then. I could have been a surgeon but for the ladies.
I do love me a fat Type 2 Russian backgammon player. I'd love to play one as long as he could maintain proper glucose levels.
"Serious" chess would imply a rating and tournament play. I, my distant friend, am a serious chess player.
StreetlightJanuary 16, 2018 at 12:19#1445210 likes
Reply to TimeLine There are few nicer trinkets one can own in the world than a beautifully inlaid wooden backgammon set. Such a good game. Pretty sure our family set looks similar to this:
I used to love Operation, but then I had my 7th birthday and it was all sex sex sex by then. I could have been a surgeon but for the ladies.
You're parents must have been proud. As they say, Jewish porn is 10% sex, 90% guilt. What would they think of you if they knew about all the things you did to Baden, especially making him get that nipple ring with a USA flag on it?
And by serious, I meant the game that can take ages and sometimes even stretch out for days. I can play - but not enjoy - a faster game but it usually involves strategies you can learn from any chess book. That is why I love BG. It is strategy in chance and you have to do it quickly, all of which I think requires more skill then chess, more real-world skill anyway.
There are few nicer trinkets one can own in the world than a beautifully inlaid wooden backgammon set. Such a good game. Pretty sure our family set looks similar to this:
Totally agree. I brought one back from Turkey and it has this mother of pearl inlaid design with geometric patterns similar to ancient Islamic penrose architecture. It is one of those games I never get sick of playing.
And by serious, I meant the game that can take ages and sometimes even stretch out for days. I can play - but not enjoy - a faster game but it usually involves strategies you can learn from any chess book
First of all, the time controls for tournament play are fast if you think 3-4 hours per game is fast. Second, most games I play are online, where time controls are 5 days per move, which is like postal chess, just online (and they take months). Third, chess strategies are learnable, but not simple. Fourth, there are backgammon strategy books, considering it too is a strategy game. Try to outgeek me. Just try. I even enumerate things.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2018 at 13:04#1445310 likes
First of all, the time controls for tournament play are fast if you think 3-4 hours per game is fast. Second, most games I play are online, where time controls are 5 days per move, which is like postal chess, just online (and they take months). Third, chess strategies are learnable, but not simple. Fourth, there are backgammon strategy books, considering it too is a strategy game. Try to outgeek me. Just try. I even enumerate things.
Lets do this. BG is actually quick-thinking strategy that aligns with chance and comparatively such strategy cannot actually be learned especially since two dice rolls has a probability of 1/36. To calculate such probabilities thinking forward with you and your opponents potential moves and to do this quickly and without the same preparedness and time as you can with chess is more real-world that requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence. Our everyday activities involve the same chance-situations that you don't have the time to adequately prepare a strategy for and you need to think quickly but in that spontaneity to be effective by ascertaining the number of possibilities how your reactions or decisions can effect you later and to your advantage. You cannot learn this from strategy books.
It is not to say that chess is somehow a lesser game only because my preference is for the former. That is why I can only play chess with some people as I have encountered many who want to play fast and I personally do not enjoy myself that way.
Reply to Lone Wolf Oh right, sharp change from the whole capitalised I FEEL LIKE SHOUTING AT SOMEONE!!!!! You should know that I have this imperative that all women and especially young girls are happy, so if you need to vent feel free. (Y)
I used to play chess. The trick is to eat Fruit Gums while playing. It's a really loud chew that distracts the other player. Used to great effect during school chess competitions.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2018 at 14:23#1445490 likes
BG is actually quick-thinking strategy that aligns with chance and comparatively such strategy cannot actually be learned especially since two dice rolls has a probability of 1/36. To calculate such probabilities thinking forward with you and your opponents potential moves and to do this quickly and without the same preparedness and time as you can with chess is more real-world that requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence. Our everyday activities involve the same chance-situations that you don't have the time to adequately prepare a strategy for and you need to think quickly but in that spontaneity to be effective by ascertaining the number of possibilities how your reactions or decisions can effect you later and to your advantage. You cannot learn this from strategy books.
The variables in chess are nearly impossible to calculate, and, unless you're a savant or a chess computer, you're not going to resort to actual crunching out of possibilities beyond at best a few moves. For that reason, general rules and strategy become applicable. Two people reading the same strategy book would not be equal players, because the ability to strategize is dictated by overall skill level, which is both learned and inherent. The same holds true for backgammon, although there is an added third variable (as opposed to what the two players bring in chess) and that is the rolling of the dice. As tournament play makes clear, the same people tend to win over and over, indicating that they are relying upon something other than chance to win. What you would expect is that in any given game a novice could beat a champion, but over time, the champion would have a much higher winning percentage. This result arises because the dice rolling equalizes over time and the strategizing separates people out.
Here's a book for you: "Backgammon, Pure Strategy." https://www.amazon.com/Backgammon-Mr-Marc-Brockmann-Olsen/dp/1539640361
So, what's my point? It's that high level backgammon and high level chess both rely upon the same skill sets, but the enjoyment of backgammon is that weaker players can still win from time to time based upon the luck of the roll. There's no fun in predictably losing every time in chess. To the extent real life is more like backgammon, what you should expect is the same people to succeed long term, with the novice getting lucky rolls every now and then and the skilled getting set backs, but play long enough, and the wheat separates from the chaff. It would greatly surprise me if a high level chess player could not play high level backgammon, although the opposite wouldn't surprise me as much, largely because I wonder how (and I really don't know) rigorous the backgammon player personality is.
This goes along with the conservative viewpoint that if you redistributed the wealth across the board tomorrow, within a few years, the same people would have re-acquired that same wealth back other than those who had previously not acquired their wealth, but who luckily were born into it or otherwise acquired it without their own efforts.
Reply to Agustino I can't play now. I'm at work. I will play you later, say after 8 p.m. Eastern (time zone is for Atlanta). Let me know when you're around.
This goes along with the conservative viewpoint that if you redistributed the wealth across the board tomorrow, within a few years, the same people would have re-acquired that same wealth back
So welfare is win-win (or win-draw?). The poor get to buy food and the rich get their taxes back.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2018 at 15:25#1445660 likes
@Michael
Once is a "mistake"
Twice is a "coincidence"
Thrice is a "pattern"
Fourth is "intentional"
Reply to Hanover Or maybe provide welfare via taxes so that they can buy fish which in turn provides for the fishermen and the shop owners and their employees and then have those taxes return back to the tax payers as per the conservative viewpoint.
I'll prove I'm psychic. Even though I don't know you, I'll provide directions to where you live:
East on the Peachtree Expressway
Turn south on the Peachtree Throughway
Get off at the exit for Peachtree Blvd.
Go two lights and turn left on Peachtree St.
Go 1.25 miles to the statue of Robert E. Lee and take a right onto Peachtree Road.
Then 7 lights and right on Peachtree Lane
A quarter mile down and left on Peachtree Circle
Third house on the left. The one with peach trees in the yard.
Backgammon is my favourite. With money. And nuts. I once did a stretch of five hours with an overweight Russian guy who had a thick layer of puffy skin under his eyes that one would think he never slept. I play serious chess, but not everyone is into this I'm afraid.
I always feel inferior discussing things with you. Chess, astrophysics, law, an ambition for new learning, an incredible reading list, compassion, drive, vision. Babies love you. You are a true renaissance woman.
And here, all I have is a clear vision of the true nature of ultimate reality.
Reply to Agustino What's your time zone? You could also log on to gameknot.com and I'll tell you my user name and we can play slow chess where you post one move and a time.
It is strategy in chance and you have to do it quickly, all of which I think requires more skill then chess, more real-world skill anyway.
That's not true. BG is a linear game, pieces only move one way, they cannot move backwards. Chess is a much more complex game, with different piece types, which have different values, and which can move in completely different ways. Chess is orders of magnitude more complex than BG.
Furthermore, you say BG requires more "real-world" skill than chess because there's a higher element of chance. I think that real-world skill is found in managing complexity, and chess has a great deal more of it. "Chance" is really irrelevant, because what chance stands for is inability to predict - in chess, you have the same inability to predict very long-run consequences of moves. Sure, theoretically, it's all mathematical, but chess still has not been solved, even with the most powerful computers we have to date. So the underlying assumption that unpredictability originates from chance is wrong. Unpredictability can equally originate from too much complexity.
To calculate such probabilities thinking forward with you and your opponents potential moves and to do this quickly and without the same preparedness and time as you can with chess is more real-world that requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence.
I don't see how BG requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence. At any one point, the potential moves you have in BG are fewer than in chess (that's one), and BG is entirely linear (pieces move only in one direction).
Our everyday activities involve the same chance-situations that you don't have the time to adequately prepare a strategy for and you need to think quickly but in that spontaneity to be effective by ascertaining the number of possibilities how your reactions or decisions can effect you later and to your advantage.
Well, I would say for most things in the everyday, you do have time to prepare a strategy. It's very rare that you don't have time to prepare a strategy, and neither can you buy time to prepare. At least in the business world, for the most part this seems to be so. For example, many times people want to sign contracts after a discussion and going over the contract, but I always request more time to ponder it on my own. So it's not a big deal - if anything, there is often too much time.
What you would expect is that in any given game a novice could beat a champion, but over time, the champion would have a much higher winning percentage.
This is not very true I think. A game where a novice can beat a world champion is a game of pure luck, basically where the participant cannot take any decisions that can impact the result. In BG, a participant can take decisions, but those decisions are a lot fewer, and a lot more limited than the ones available in chess.
This goes along with the conservative viewpoint that if you redistributed the wealth across the board tomorrow, within a few years, the same people would have re-acquired that same wealth back other than those who had previously not acquired their wealth, but who luckily were born into it or otherwise acquired it without their own efforts.
Doubtful. For that to be the case, those previously wealthy people would need to retain the skills and practical knowledge they've gathered, including their connections - and how did they gather those things? By already being wealthy for the most part. Once you were wealthy at one time, even if you lose it, it's easier to make it back again (provided you have the motivation), since you have a practical understanding of the process - you know how to do it.
If we did a complete reset (hypothetically) and returned everyone to the same starting capital, and the same knowledge, we would surely have a group who would be interested in becoming wealthy, and some people from that group will indeed form most of the wealthy. But who exactly from amongst them will largely be a matter of luck.
Take someone like Warren Buffett - when software was just getting started, he lacked the knowledge necessary, that others (like Bill Gates) already had. WB had virtually no chance to become the richest man in the world off this new industry. Why did Bill Gates have a much better chance? He was born in the right place, he had access to computers and programming early on, he had the right connections/team, and he was acting at the right time. That's not his merit - what is his merit is that he, unlike many other kids (but still relatively few) who had access that early to computers decided to pursue it.
But suppose you are a kid born in an African village in the middle of Congo! Good luck becoming the richest man in the world in the day of software. You may become rich there in your village, relative to the other people surrounding you, if the social structure permits it. But that's it.
So the society you find yourself in is very important. It's not just individual merit. If you take Bill Gates and you put him in Communist Russia, he would not have become Bill Gates.
The Chinese Go is the most advanced strategy game there is. It goes miles in explaining how come the Chinese are x100 ahead of the Western world when it comes to strategy.
Reply to Agustino China is 100 x more advanced than the US in terms of strategizing what? Where do you see the amazing successes of China and why is the line of immigrant traffic going from China to the US and not the US to China?
why is the line of immigrant traffic going from China to the US and not the US to China?
Does China need more people? The question more relevant to Trump supporters is why is it that capital and jobs want to head the other way.
China is more than happy to own almost a third of the U.S. debt.
Owning U.S. Treasury notes helps China's economy grow by keeping its currency weaker than the dollar. It keeps Chinese exports cheaper than U.S. products. China's highest priority is creating enough jobs for its 1.4 billion people.
The United States allowed China to become one of its biggest bankers because the American people enjoy low consumer prices. Selling debt to China funds federal government programs that allow the U.S. economy to grow. It also keeps U.S. interest rates low. But China's ownership of the U.S. debt is shifting the economic balance of power in its favor.
China's low-cost competitive strategy worked. Its economy grew 10 percent annually for the three decades before the recession. Now it's growing at 7 percent, a more sustainable rate. China has become the largest economy in the world. It's outpaced the United States and the European Union. China also became the world's biggest exporter in 2010.
Shitholes. It's all relative to a 1000 year view for the strategically minded. A Chinese political scientist summed it up for me. China is run by engineers, the US by lawyers. The results will be what you would expect in the long run. :)
There's something happening here
what it is aint exactly clear
there's a man with a gun over there
tellin me I got to be 'ware
I think its time we
stop
Didn't anyone reply? Stop children what's that sound, everybody look what's goin down...
Reply to Hanover My comment is just with regards to my study of Chinese military history. China has been the world's largest economy for most of human history, they are a nation with a very long and (for the most part) very successful history. The only time China wasn't at the top was the last 200-300 years, and they're quickly catching back up - and that only happened due to the technological advancement of the European nations at that time, which were ahead of China.
If you study Chinese history in more detail, and study the schemes and plots that existed in say, the Three Kingdoms period, or the Warring States period, you will see that the Chinese mind far outweighs what you find in, for example, in the Peloponnesian War, or with Tayllerand, or Cardinal Richelieu, etc.
Shitholes. It's all relative to a 1000 year view for the strategically minded. A Chinese political scientist summed it up for me. China is run by engineers, the US by lawyers. The results will be what you would expect in the long run. :)
The success of a country is more dependent on a stable government than a hard working and capable populace. It's sort of like asking which is more important, the workers on the assembly line or the managers in the office. It's not that either are unimportant, but the success of a company or a country will depend on utilization and management of resources (human or otherwise) to a greater degree than simply having those resources at your disposal.
If you're asking if I wanted engineers to run America, I think not. I've not seen where engineers have taken a significant leadership role in the US, and it's not because they've been limited from that endeavor. That personality doesn't necessarily lend itself to leadership. I'd say the same thing for the academic personality that finds greater comfort in evaluation and critique than in leadership.
It's not that either are unimportant, but the success of a company or a country will depend on utilization and management of resources (human or otherwise) to a greater degree than simply having those resources at your disposal.
Somehow I don't think you are up to date with how a financialised economy operates. China is leveraging off the US right now. It seems you don't get it.
The US of course made a sound investment in being "the world's policeman" for a while. That paid off in terms of new markets for US goods and access to underpriced world resources.
But then having a "hard working and capable populace" was where the US let the ball drop. Sure, that would still be the case if it was still a good old smokestack factory economy. But due to its weak political planning, it didn't really bring its people along with it on during its modernisation. It imported the PhDs to do the new economy stuff, and the illegals willing to work for less than a minimum wage.
If you're asking if I wanted engineers to run America, I think not. I've not seen where engineers have taken a significant leadership role in the US, and it's not because they've been limited from that endeavor. That personality doesn't necessarily lend itself to leadership. I'd say the same thing for the academic personality that finds greater comfort in evaluation and critique than in leadership.
I dunno. Moving around the world, I keep finding those with engineering training actually running things. But these days, yes, we are often talking financial engineering when it comes to successful political leaders.
Look at Trump. A failed real estate investor - returns on inherited wealth failing to out-perform government bonds despite all the chicanery - pretending to be a financial engineering genius.
But anyway, if your arguments are going to be as trite as engineers don't have leadership genes, no point pretending anything you say could be taken as serious.
Reply to Benkei A leader is the guy making the decisions. He's the guy who decides to build the bridge and then he goes and gets engineers to design the bridge and guys to actually build it.
Reply to Hanover Just the tiniest bit of research would show you that you talk bollocks.
From HBR...
Why Engineers Make Great Leaders
Twenty-four of HBR’s 100 best-performing CEOs have undergraduate or graduate degrees in engineering, compared with 29 who have MBAs. (Eight CEOs have both degrees.) At technology or science-based companies, it’s not a big surprise to find an engineer at the helm. But engineers thrive at the top of other kinds of firms, too: Examples include Carlos Alves de Brito of brewing giant Anheuser-Busch InBev, Jeffrey Sprecher of the financial services firm Intercontinental Exchange, and Kari Stadigh of the insurance company Sampo.
What makes an engineering degree useful to people leading a business? “Studying engineering gives someone a practical, pragmatic orientation,” says Nitin Nohria, the dean of Harvard Business School, who holds an undergraduate degree in chemical engineering from the Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay. “Engineering is about what works, and it breeds in you an ethos of building things that work—whether it’s a machine or a structure or an organization. Engineering also teaches you to try to do things efficiently and eloquently, with reliable outcomes, and with a margin of safety. It makes you think about costs versus performance. These are principles that can be deeply important when you think about organizations.”
While I'm at it, there was this good Economist article on US lawyers vs Chinese engineers...
WHEN Barack Obama met Hu Jintao, his Chinese counterpart, at the G20 summit in London, it was an encounter not just between two presidents, but also between two professions and mindsets. A lawyer, trained to argue from first principles and haggle over words, was speaking to an engineer, who knew how to build physical structures and keep them intact.
The prevalence of lawyers in America's ruling elite (spotted by a Frenchman, Alexis de Tocqueville, in the 1830s) is stronger than ever. Mr Obama went to Harvard Law School (1988-91); his cabinet contains Hillary Clinton (Yale Law, 1969-73) as secretary of state, Eric Holder (Columbia Law, 1973-76) as attorney-general, Joe Biden (Syracuse University law school, 1965-68) as vice-president and Leon Panetta (Santa Clara University law school, 1960-63) as director of the CIA. That's the tip of the iceberg. Over half of America's senators practised law. Mr Obama's inner circle is sprinkled with classmates from Harvard Law: the dean of that school, Elena Kagan, is solicitor-general; Cass Sunstein, a professor there, is also in the administration.
President Hu, in contrast, is a hydraulic engineer (he worked for a state hydropower company). His predecessor, Jiang Zemin, was an electrical engineer, who trained in Moscow at the Stalin Automobile Works. The prime minister, Wen Jiabao, specialised in geological engineering. The senior body of China's Communist Party is the Politburo's standing committee. Making up its nine members are eight engineers, and one lawyer. This is not a relic of the past: 2007 saw the appointments of one petroleum and two chemical engineers. The last American president to train as an engineer was Herbert Hoover.
http://www.economist.com/node/13496638
...but back to your fact-free opinions. I wandered into the shoutbox by mistake.
It's cold as a witch's tit outside, and I don't feel like driving to the gym, but I haven't been in a few days and putting on my gym shoes is going to hurt like a mother fucker because of the God damned stubbed toe. And the fucking dog is barking his fool head off because he heard a train in the distance. I'd beat the shit out of him but he wouldn't notice. The fucker's like a horse, just stupider. That's what I'm up to, like you care.
The Chinese Go is the most advanced strategy game there is. It goes miles in explaining how come the Chinese are x100 ahead of the Western world when it comes to strategy.
But they eat with chopsticks, which is far less efficient than a knife and fork. So even if they're great at strategy, they're still eating dinner whilst the rest of us getting on with stuff.
StreetlightJanuary 17, 2018 at 09:20#1447500 likes
Clearly you've never eaten with chopsticks. Knives and forks are child's play compared to them!
Maybe I'm just terrible with them, even with all that practice.
StreetlightJanuary 17, 2018 at 09:26#1447520 likes
Heh, to be fair, I correlate my utensils with the kind of food I'm eating - I almost always eat Asian food with chopsticks, Western food with knives and forks. I'm really all about #utensil equality.
Reply to StreetlightX There is this awesome Malaysian street food place around the corner from work and I be like:
StreetlightJanuary 17, 2018 at 12:09#1447810 likes
Reply to TimeLine To be fair, I'm generally permanently like that around food :P A matter of course(s), one could say.
My sister gets back from 6 months in China tomorrow, and I expect that I'll be eating nothing but Western food at home for at least the next two weeks as a result, lol.
To be fair, I'm generally permanently like that around food
I'm kind of permanently like that with fruit. I get this weird, weak in the knees sensation where I hold my breath for a few seconds in a gasp when I see that mangoes are on special at Coles and I pretend to be all cool when I am screaming with joy inside.
So, BBQs, Lasagnas, and Salads for the next two weeks, eh? You'll be right (Y)
I'm kind of permanently like that with fruit. I get this weird, weak in the knees sensation where I hold my breath for a few seconds in a gasp when I see that mangoes are on special at Coles and I pretend to be all cool when I am screaming with joy inside.
Wow, a full-blown orgasm from mangoes. Hanover knows what to feed you now.
Reply to Agustino What is wrong with you? You wrote a whole essay just because I like BG only because you believe that we have time to think through strategies in our everyday chance experiences. You probably live in a tree somewhere because I know that is not the case for most of our daily experiences.
I like monopoly too. Want to write an exegesis about it?
we have time to think through strategies in our everyday chance experiences.
:s of course we have time to think through strategies... I really don't understand what you're talking about. What sort of situations do you have in mind when we don't have time to think through strategies? Can you give some examples?
That personality doesn't necessarily lend itself to leadership.
From my experience, it's generally the exact opposite. Engineers are able to lead because they are pragmatic, they understand how different components (whether social or parts of a system, etc.) fit together, and they understand long-term consequences very well. The more "social" professions, such as lawyers, accountants, etc. are good politically, but not in terms of sheer effectiveness & efficiency.
A leader is the guy making the decisions. He's the guy who decides to build the bridge and then he goes and gets engineers to design the bridge and guys to actually build it.
So then, in your opinion, it's access to (or control over) capital that makes one a leader?
He's not a failed real estate investor - he did not lose the money all the while actively playing it. That is a feat in-itself, granted that most RE investors who actively play their money lose.
I'm kind of permanently like that with fruit. I get this weird, weak in the knees sensation where I hold my breath for a few seconds in a gasp when I see that mangoes are on special at Coles and I pretend to be all cool when I am screaming with joy inside.
From my experience, it's generally the exact opposite. Engineers are able to lead because they are pragmatic, they understand how different components (whether social or parts of a system, etc.) fit together, and they understand long-term consequences very well. The more "social" professions, such as lawyers, accountants, etc. are good politically, but not in terms of sheer effectiveness & efficiency.
You've got to motivate and get people to listen to you. I'm not pigeon holing all engineers as Asperger like, so there may be some that fit the bill. What I am saying is that the technical skills they possess are a different skill set, but I'd agree that if they can create a feeling of competency from their expertise, they can use it to assert authority or persuasion, but that does take a certain amount of social aptitude. That someone has mastered the assembly line with great effectiveness and efficiency does not mean he can run the assembly line. Maybe he can, but he might find that he can't if placed in that position.Quoting Agustino
So then, in your opinion, it's access to (or control over) capital that makes one a leader?
It will make you a leader simply by virtue of the position. Whether you're a good leader once you've inserted yourself in that position is another matter. That is, if I own the company, people will listen to me because I have dictator like control. Leading by decree is the worst form of leadership. If I worked in a company that advanced leaders based upon their management skills, the managers would probably be better suited because they would have proved myself as opposed to having just bought the position. Management degrees exist for a purpose. In the end though, if you can't manage your people and your business, you'll fail, so many entrepreneurs find their great ideas limited by their inability to build beyond themselves. Of course, a really really great idea might fly on its own merit just through brute force.
What I've seen in the corporate world is that leaders are promoted based upon their relationships with other leaders, but leaders are then offered minimal true leadership authority, watering it down with all sorts of rules and procedures so that hiring and firing must go through a system. What you end up with really isn't leadership at all, but managers are really corporate auditors monitoring objective performance criteria and documenting deficiencies that might one day offer enough justification to alter the employee's status. That does create a stable system, but it can be so conservative in nature that reacting to change will be a challenge. IAll the real leaders are at the top of the chain, and their decisions alone will affect the whole system. You have to hope they don't suck. They often do, with the hordes below them knowing it, watching it, but entirely incapable of stopping it. Those who see it leave, creating an ever growing pool of mediocrity. Anyway, just an observation.
@Hanover I have a different view on what makes a leader. Let me know what you think:
Management and leadership are different things. Leaders inspire others, managers facilitate others. Leadership is about building trust and going the extra mile. People feel safe around leaders. A particular feature I've found striking in people who I think make good leaders, is the ability to think of others where most people think about themselves (particulary in stressful situations). People don't have to be in a decision making position to be leaders. People will go the extra mile for a leader, because they know he'd do it too.
You've got to motivate and get people to listen to you.
You are right, but do you consider the rules of social interaction & motivation to be any different than the rules of engineering? The reason I'm asking you this is because engineering, by its very nature, is pragmatic, and will look for whatever solution gets the result desired. Engineering is the opposite of ideology - an engineer only uses theories, etc. so long as they yield results. Many times, engineers will fall back on heuristics when theories are stretched to their limits.
I'm not pigeon holing all engineers as Asperger like, so there may be some that fit the bill.
What do you take the difference between an engineer and a scientist to be? The reason I'm asking is that typically it's the scientist that we see as "Asperger" like and unable to interact socially. Of course those are just cultural images, there can be differences in actual people.
What I am saying is that the technical skills they possess are a different skill set
Yes, that part of an engineer's training is not relevant to leadership. But that's not all that an engineer learns - indeed, if that was all an engineer learned, then he would be a mere technician. Many engineers do study management - I did have to take several management courses at university for civil engineering. I didn't find them particularly useful, but management and social relations were seen as essential for success as a civil engineer, and this point was very heavily driven into us.
The more important aspects that you learn in engineering is an attitude and an approach to problem-solving. You also learn how to take decisions (decisions that could lead to people dying in the case of civil engineering) that incorporate uncertainty into them and hedge against risks (safety factors, etc.). You learn how to go about quantifying that uncertainty, and being able to deal with it rationally. I personally found this approach to be essential for my work as self-employed and entrepreneurship. I would certainly have been poorer without having learned this.
That someone has mastered the assembly line with great effectiveness and efficiency does not mean he can run the assembly line.
When the assembly line is designed though, engineers do have to take into account how workers will have to interact with it, which processes are automated and which are not, how errors will be handled both by the software and by human agents, etc. For example, when I got certified to be able to deal with installations, industrial elevators, pressurised containers, etc. it was an essential part of the course and exam to be aware and take into consideration how people will interact with them, what people must be instructed to do in case of an accident, etc.
That is, if I own the company, people will listen to me because I have dictator like control.
People from within your company will listen to you, however, in all likelihood your most important interactions will be with people from outside the company (clients, suppliers, etc.) - they will not necessarily listen to you (depends on what sort of power you have over them - if you account for 30% of the monthly volume of a supplier, then he will certainly listen to you). In fact, this is something that is very difficult, and a lot of it depends on who exactly you're interacting with, and local social conditions. For example, recently, I've been looking for a new accountant, and I sent an email to 300 local accountants. I sent multiple versions too, from different email addresses - I got exactly 0 responses. Why? Because people here are (1) slow, and (2) they distrust email (just a prevailing cultural attitude). So I had to individually call some of them, which takes a lot longer than just writing up a few emails to get a quote. Such social conditions can be highly restrictive to what's possible.
I'm not so sure about this - I don't think management as such is a profession, but it's my own personal view. I think managers certainly want us to think they are in the possession of a "science", something they can use to influence people (regardless of their will), etc.
so many entrepreneurs find their great ideas limited by their inability to build beyond themselves.
That's true, and many entrepreneurs also find their operations limited by their lack of understanding of technical matters with regards to their industry. Engineering does give you this attention to detail, and capacity to learn and understand logistical aspects - and logistics includes people, as well as other resources. I've met with business people who were trained in something other than engineering - like marketing, business administration, etc. and one of the things I remarked was that they struggled to articulate certain things about their business since they did not understand certain aspects of their logistics. And this does provide a significant limitation - it leads to not being aware of all the possibilities and courses of action available to you.
What I've seen in the corporate world is that leaders are promoted based upon their relationships with other leaders, but leaders are then offered minimal true leadership authority, watering it down with all sorts of rules and procedures so that hiring and firing must go through a system. What you end up with really isn't leadership at all, but managers are really corporate auditors monitoring objective performance criteria and documenting deficiencies that might one day offer enough justification to alter the employee's status. That does create a stable system, but it can be so conservative in nature that reacting to change will be a challenge. IAll the real leaders are at the top of the chain, and their decisions alone will affect the whole system. You have to hope they don't suck. They often do, with the hordes below them knowing it, watching it, but entirely incapable of stopping it. Those who see it leave, creating an ever growing pool of mediocrity. Anyway, just an observation.
I agree with this, I faced a recent issue with a bank about this. And effectively everyone you get to blames the "procedures" for the problems, but of course nothing changes. But then, if you think about it, there is no other way to run a very big organisation (unless you have a micro-managing "dictator" who knows everything that is happening - that would typically be the owner). But in cases where there isn't one owner, how will you - as the shareholders - ensure that the people running your company do not take decisions that will benefit themselves and their own influence? Afterall, you could have cliques forming through the company, who end up pushing their own interests, even at the expense of the company shareholders - afterall, they don't really care about the company, they don't own it. So how can you stop that? You need to limit their influence through procedures & other internal regulations & bureaucracy. That's why in third world countries which are very corrupt, these procedures tend to be a living hell. But I think it's more profitable for shareholders this way, than to allow corruption to run rampant through the company.
Management and leadership are different things. Leaders inspire others, managers facilitate others.
That's what I was taught in University too - I personally don't pay much attention to it. I don't think there is any such thing as a leader - all that happens is that we have a series of jobs that need to get done. The leader is the one who gets the job (and by that I mean the entire job) done. And it doesn't matter if this is by delegating it to others, outsourcing it, doing it him/herself, etc.
Management and leadership are different things. Leaders inspire others, managers facilitate others. Leadership is about building trust and going the extra mile. People feel safe around leaders. A particular feature I've found striking in people who I think make good leaders, is the ability to think of others where most people think about themselves (particulary in stressful situations). People don't have to be in a decision making position to be leaders. People will go the extra mile for a leader, because they know he'd do it too.
I agree with what you've said here, although I think you're describing a good leader. There are many bad leaders, but they're leaders nonetheless simply because they've been placed in the front of the line and everyone has to follow them. A corporate manager once pointed out to me that people don't work for companies. They work for managers. It was ironic because he was a horrible manager and leader, but what he said was true. I worked for a Fortune 15 company for 19 years under one manager and only a few months later I left after she got promoted. It was truly like working for a different company under the new manager. And what you said is true, she actually cared about her employees, not in just a remembering my kids' names and what sports they played sort of a way, but in a "are you ok" sort of way. Being a good person will never hurt you . As I ask young lawyers, why do you think being a dick is going to work in the courtroom when it doesn't work anywhere else in the world? Yes, and I know I probably sometimes need to take my own advice from time to time.
As I ask young lawyers, why do you think being a dick is going to work in the courtroom when it doesn't work anywhere else in the world?
>:O lol! It really depends. I've seen (or heard about) quite a few lawyers being absolutely terrible in terms of behaviour, but they can get away with it due to their status. If you have a certain social position and reputation, it kind of insulates you from the bad effects. But yes, if you don't have that privileged position, you simply cannot afford to be rude.
Reply to Sapientia
Am I joking when I think there is a difference between belief and thinking , Dah no.
You can believe without thinking.
You can think about something without having to believe it.
There are many bad leaders, but they're leaders nonetheless simply because they've been placed in the front of the line and everyone has to follow them.
Is a leader nobody wants to follow still a leader? I'm tempted to say no.
Is a leader nobody wants to follow still a leader? I'm tempted to say no.
Isn't Kim Jong-un a leader? I think I'm right in the literal sense for sure, else the phrase "despised leader" would be self-contradictory. If you asked if a despised leader had leadership skills, I think you could, in a non-self contradictory way, claim he doesn't. So, a leader can lack any leadership skills, which is what I meant when I said you were describing bad leaders, as opposed to non-leaders. A leader can become a leader by virtue of ownership of resources, anointment, birthright, coup, might, electoral process, charisma, intellect, mystique, or whatever else, and none of those methods of becoming a leader assure any leadership skills. Ideally, we'd hope that leadership positions are gained through merit, but that's not always the case.
The interesting question really is what are effective leadership skills.
Baden doesn't realise we're Australian. We have access to the best foods like whenever we want.
My father lived in Melbourne for three years in the 90s. I was surprised when he told me how good the food is there and how seriously Australians take it. I think I'd always assumed that Australian attitudes and practices would be like the British.
What sort of situations do you have in mind when we don't have time to think through strategies? Can you give some examples?
Well, I have a really busy job and work with numerous stakeholders, travelling across the state and country regularly. All of February, for instance, I will be incredibly busy because school starts here after the summer holidays. I have to communicate to senior managers, children, teachers, just so many various stakeholders in order to manage this particular program. Can you imagine just how many encounters I experience each day?
I also don't have a car and so I am catching transportation everywhere or using the company car when I need to travel further out, and encounter more people on transport, chance issues that I have to regularly face like technical problems, physical like my right foot that sometimes hurt after I injured it in the car accident, then further still I have bills to pay, rent, groceries etc.
These experiences can make it difficult to have the time to think ahead and to plan any such encounters. I see what you mean, for instance, my strategy is about self-management and so I know how to decompress from all that usually by watching movies, chatting on here or going on hikes. I am lucky because I absolutely love my job and find it very rewarding, my colleagues that I work with are so wonderful, my close friends actually make me feel great. So, I have never been happier. Hence why I love backgammon. I love my life right now.
Reply to Hanover that's a valid way of looking at it and probably how most people do. You see leadership as a position and role. I tend to view it more as a calling. It's a bit like dancing. How bad do you have to be at it before we stop calling you a dancer?
So there's plenty of people out there that are in leadership roles that I don't acknowledge as such. Not that that makes a difference but it does affect my behaviour towards them and I've openly undermined authority of people who aren't leaders by standing up for the people affected by their shitty decisions. I don't stand up to (good) leaders even if I may disagree because I trust them.
Edit: also, I'm Dutch, which makes me pretty anti-authoritarian to begin with. It's a cultural thing.
I have to communicate to senior managers, children, teachers, just so many various stakeholders in order to manage this particular program. Can you imagine just how many encounters I experience each day?
Yeah, but most of those encounters, 80% probably, are not very important. I find it hard to believe that you have your day littered with super important meetings, negotiations, etc. They do not need any strategizing, it is sufficient to react on the moment - and if you do need more time, you can find a way to buy some time for yourself, it's not very difficult. For the other 20%, which are really important, you probably do have time to strategise.
encounter more people on transport, chance issues that I have to regularly face like technical problems, physical like my right foot that sometimes hurt after I injured it in the car accident, then further still I have bills to pay, rent, groceries etc.
Why do these issues require strategizing to deal with in your opinion? They are relatively insignificant, no strategy is needed. For example, I don't drive, so sometimes I take public transport and other times I just have to take a cab - interactions with cab driver are a non-issue for me, I don't strategise. I deal with it in the moment, because nothing in that interaction has any significant consequences for the future. But a negotiation on terms and conditions of a contract for an important service I need - like accounting right now - takes a great deal more of time to prepare and strategize so that I get a good deal for meself since I'll be stuck with it for quite a bit.
Yeah, but most of those encounters, 80% probably, are not very important. I find it hard to believe that you have your day littered with super important meetings, negotiations, etc. They do not need any strategizing, it is sufficient to react on the moment - and if you do need more time, you can find a way to buy some time for yourself, it's not very difficult. For the other 20%, which are really important, you probably do have time to strategise.
In a comparative analogy, 80% of the moves you make in BG are not very important either, but how these moves are made lead to either winning or losing. I manage a project throughout the school year, which is to get hundreds of kids reading, build great working relationships and friendships, and get rewarded for that 80% so long as the trajectory is intended to try and win. Those reactions may not be consequential at that given moment, but each reaction has an effect - whether on you or on other aspects to this trajectory - that could challenge your overall win. Your focus in all the speed, chance, movement is imperative and without which you risk losing.
I don't know about you, but when I get treated badly I shut down and get confused and it is my goal to be happy and so I am learning how to distance myself from that possibility. I remember you telling me about a sexist cab driver; so, imagine I jump in a taxi and this driver starts saying all sorts and though the interaction may not have any significant consequence to me that moment - as in I may not be in danger - it affects me, that could lead to another error and then another. Your strategy to negotiate the terms and conditions of a contract could be affected by a number of factors that you may think are irrelevant or that your attention is not drawn to; to write out that contract is Chess, but the process of getting someone to sign it is both strategy and chance.
I am not upset at your comments made to me. I am upset about the comments made against fruit. I have had enough of all the fruitarian discrimination going on around here that now I am in negotiations to add to the following site guidelines:
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, fruit-provocateurs: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
StreetlightJanuary 18, 2018 at 12:47#1451080 likes
Fun fact: the original saying is 'you can't eat your cake and have it too' - which makes more sense, when you think about it in temporal order - but we've reversed it for whatever reason in recent times.
Cakes? And traits of cakes, meaning sweetness, cakeness, and such matters concerning cake'ness.
Yes.
On a side note, some recipes of mine including the guinness mud cake, neapolitan gåsebryst, and an open wedding cake with caramelised fig that I made for a friend have been published. You should see my savoury stuff - vegetarian shepherds pie is the bomb - and breads like salmon and camembert brioche.
I was going to say that people get fat with my sweetness, but Hanover looms with potential.
On a side note, some recipes of mine including the guinness mud cake, neapolitan gåsebryst, and an open wedding cake with caramelised fig that I made for a friend have been published. You should see my savoury stuff - vegetarian shepherds pie is the bomb - and breads like salmon and camembert brioche.
Are you sure your cookbook hasn't been run through a gibberish generator?
Salmon & camembert brioche must be some sort of abomination.
In a comparative analogy, 80% of the moves you make in BG are not very important either
I disagree. Like in chess, every move matters in BG, and mistakes add up. Life is not like that, since there are no clear boundaries and regulations as in BG - in other words, there are a lot more "correct" moves, and mistakes don't always add up since life isn't formed of a single goal like BG or chess.
Those reactions may not be consequential at that given moment, but each reaction has an effect - whether on you or on other aspects to this trajectory - that could challenge your overall win. Your focus in all the speed, chance, movement is imperative and without which you risk losing.
I disagree - over time I've stopped sweating the small stuff.
I don't know about you, but when I get treated badly I shut down and get confused and it is my goal to be happy and so I am learning how to distance myself from that possibility.
Hmmm... I just tend to ignore it nowadays, and focus on things I can control. I'm often treated badly by people who I don't have direct power over in business, but I don't react to it except in indirect ways, because reacting directly usually leads to less than optimal solutions.
to write out that contract is Chess, but the process of getting someone to sign it is both strategy and chance.
No, all of it is chess. You only write it after you've already negotiated and agreed on the terms. And the contract is quite irrelevant, what's more important are the terms themselves. It's the structure of the terms that prevents you from being cheated many times, not the legally binding agreement itself. And there are a whole array of different tactics to use depending on who you're dealing with, and what actions they take.
My father lived in Melbourne for three years in the 90s. I was surprised when he told me how good the food is there and how seriously Australians take it. I think I'd always assumed that Australian attitudes and practices would be like the British.
We do. Our most popular shows are cooking programs. But, I get to go home early today because it is too hot. I call this View from my Office from my Happy Weekend Collection. Have an awesome weekend everyone!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 18, 2018 at 23:16#1451900 likes
This is view of my reality right now. Not bad, not bad at all.
I was going to say that people get fat with my sweetness, but Hanover looms with potential.
Did someone say my name? They did! They did!
I'm just listening in to find out what makes the best life analogy: chess or backgammon (or "BG" as the hipsters say). I'm thinking it's actually Gnip Gnop or Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Let's talk about something else. I like bread. It's better than fruit or vegetables. I KNOW this will get heated, so I'm all ready to mod the living shit out of what I KNOW comes next.
Jewish Rye. Best. Bread. Ever. Deal with it goyim. Deal with it.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 18, 2018 at 23:37#1451950 likes
Name this song without using the Internet to answer :
I see her in a smokey room smell of wine and cheap perfume for a smile they can share the night
Mmhmm that is the same bs story the Rabbi told me and I said.the warm, limp, Kosher pickle should be.wrapped in barbed wire and put up on the cross to be crucified by the good Catholics of this world and then he is going to need to go to confession and ask the Father for forgiveness for continuing this bs story. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you but I know you will find comfort in knowing the truth and as they say, the truth shall set you free. Free to consume and heal.from a good marble rye with a good dose of Horesradish. You can thank me for being considerate and looking out for what is bs in life.
That salmon camembert muffin thing of yours proves you have perverse taste, and this quote proves you can't read. I said I loathed pasta salad -- especially pasta salad served cold on salmon camembert brioche. Gag me with a spoon.
That salmon camembert muffin thing of yours proves you have perverse taste, and this quote proves you can't read. I said I loathed pasta salad -- especially pasta salad served cold on salmon camembert brioche. Gag me with a spoon.
How rude. Clearly you are a man spoon and your head made out of metal if you think a brioche is a muffin. Have you never had baked camembert? Having that soft cheese through the buttery bread is to die for, you mad ol' fool.
Reply to Posty McPostface I'm on a tram crammed with people in this extreme heat, nothing could be worse. But, the weather is relaxing the week ahead, perfect weather. Sometimes, you just deal with it for one or two days when it's tough, and then you'll find that you have an awesome week to enjoy lazing about at park reading.
Yeah, same, but you're young. Lots of things to do in life, apart from girl stuff. If I had a girlfriend now, she would break up with me in a few weeks, since I wouldn't give her sufficient time :P lol.
Reply to Posty McPostface Well, do tell us, we will analyze them rationally. Philosophically induced insecurities are usually ultimately of a superficial nature.
Because Schopenhauer is depressing, isolating, alienating, and a narcissistic philosophy. Strangely enough, though, Schopenhauer quells angst and anxiety with the poison of his defeatist and pessimistic philosophy. I used to find solace in that; but, for how long can one remain alienated, isolated, and depressed?
Reply to Posty McPostface That is a worry. There is nothing greater than being in love with someone and for them to love you back. Don't listen to Agu, he is silly, just like Schopenhauer. Women in their hearts want to be respected and loved, they want to be friends and do not think that men are merely intended for money.
By embracing it, and not trying to dissociate from the feeling through trivial philosophical rationalizations. As Spinoza might say, by embracing the affective element of one's persona.
Reply to Noble Dust Perhaps, but it can be overcome. Not by embracing it per se as posty would say, but by articulating it objectively. You get caught in your subjective whirlwind and find it hard to see things for what they are.
Reply to TimeLine
Yes; but, there's truth in suffering and anxiety. The attachment to material things is the root of all suffering as the Buddhists and their neighbors, the Stoics, would say.
Reply to Noble Dust Anxiety is subconscious emotions trying to tell you through the very feelings it produces that you do not agree to something, whatever that may be. You may, for instance, have had a dominating mother and every action or decision that you make is parallel to her approval and so you are miserable because the choices you are making are in response to something other than you. Or, you are in an unhappy relationship, but are too afraid to leave it and find real happiness with someone right for you or for who you really love.
Whatever it may be, and only you would know, these feelings are you talking to you, but without words that make sense. Hence why you would need to articulate them objectively, bring it to conscious level and then the anxiety will go away. That is, put words to the feelings and speak it for what it is.
Strangely enough, though, Schopenhauer quells angst and anxiety with the poison of his defeatist and pessimistic philosophy.
Why is that strange? Telling you that there's nothing you can do, and so you have no responsibility, calms anxiety. We're anxious about responsibility and the possibility of failing to meet it, but there is a sort of nihilism that acts as calming of conscious anxiety.
Women in their hearts want to be respected and loved, they want to be friends and do not think that men are mere intended for money.
Who said anything about money? Well sure, they do want that, but depending on one's goals, that may be a problem, and not a solution. Love takes time, and when you're building a business you have no such time. I took no holidays for the past 2 years, this year just Christmas holiday, and that's cause things are more settled now, and I gained a sort of mastery that allows me to move through things more easily.
You may, for instance, have had a dominating mother and every action or decision that you make is parallel to her approval and so you are miserable because the choices you are making are in response to something other than you. Or, you are in an unhappy relationship, but are too afraid to leave it and find real happiness with someone right for you or for who you really love.
There is nothing wrong with having a dominating mother. One can live happily, although less selfishly, with one.
Whatever it may be, and only you would know, these feelings are you talking to you, but without words that make sense. Hence why you would need to articulate them objectively, bring it to conscious level and then the anxiety will go away. That is, put words to the feelings and speak it for what it is.
So one articulates anxiety objectively by bringing anxiety to a conscious level, that is, put words to the feelings and speak it for what it is? So speaking anxiety out loud means objective?
You may, for instance, have had a dominating mother and every action or decision that you make is parallel to her approval and so you are miserable because the choices you are making are in response to something other than you. Or, you are in an unhappy relationship, but are too afraid to leave it and find real happiness with someone right for you or for who you really love.
Yes; but, there's truth in suffering and anxiety. The attachment to things is the root of all suffering as the Buddhists and their neighbors, the Stoics, would say.
The attachments are much more than materialism, they are experiences we are not aware of consciously, epistemic, the patterns of our very thoughts and how we interpret ourselves and the external world. Most of this occurs during childhood and most of what we understand is limited, so we form habits that incorrectly perceive the world around us. We need to change that when we have the cognitive capacity to, to transcend that, but the only problem is that we don't do this because we simply don't realise or understand what we are doing.
Other philosophies like Buddhists or Stoics are merely showing us a different route that help mirror our flaws. But, essentially, we are not growing or becoming better, we are just merely rearranging our prejudices.
Reply to Noble Dust
How can you be anxious if you don't find anything threatening? You might have an uneasy feeling, but surely there must be instances when you perceive things (or people) as threatening to you or your goals that makes you feel anxious.
Then one must constantly be aware of what they are desirous over or about.
So if realizing anxiety is physically unreal isn't helpful in terms of relinquishing the source of the anxiety as well as the anxiety itself, then "one must constantly be aware of what they are desirous over or about?"
So one articulates anxiety objectively by bringing anxiety to a conscious level, that is, put words toe the feelings and speak it for what it is? So speaking anxiety out loud mean is objective?
You have anxiety because you don't know what it is, not that you know what it is. That is why you have it. It is not speaking 'out loud' but actually speaking correctly for why you have it, the reasons for it. Most people don't, they go round in circles avoiding the actuality as though they enjoy the self-pity.
Reply to Noble Dust I don't think desire itself is a problem, what is a problem is being attached to outcomes that are outside of your control. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to achieve those outcomes, just that your focus should be on the process (giving your best) which is in your control.
Well, we can't be aware of all our emotions or anxious elements at once. There are means for compensating for that. Defence mechanisms are one example, depression is another if the feeling is persistent. So, the key is a clear conscious or stable mind in regards to over what is illustrious over, be it money, prestige, recognition, etc.
Leading me to believe, that we all ought to practice ethics for the sake of a calm and clear mind.
There is nothing wrong with having a dominating mother. One can live happily, although less selfishly, with one.
There is a lot wrong with a dominating mother. Your happiness is a happiness based only on pleasing her - and ultimately others - and not what you actually want. There is nothing wrong with wanting something for you, loving yourself and wanting to be happy.
A few of them that I'm comfortable sharing are social anxiety from being home-schooled and generally shut off from society (thus feeling like an observer watching society happen, not a participant), as well as anxiety about career.
There is a lot wrong with a dominating mother. Their happiness is a happiness based only on pleasing her - and ultimately others - and not what you actually want. There is nothing wrong with wanting something for you, loving yourself and wanting to be happy.
A domineering mother also loves their offspring as must as a caring or any other type of mother. It's just expressed in a different manner.
Fair, but I was really just curious how you were using "unreal", as a maker of poetic words myself. I took it at first to mean "the anxiety is unreal"; the anxiety is crazy, insane, too much. And then interpreted it as meaning, literally, unreal. Maybe that was just my mistake.
I don't think desire itself is a problem, what is a problem is being attached to outcomes that are outside of your control. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to achieve those outcomes, just that your focus should be on the process (giving your best) which is in your control.
A domineering mother also loves their offspring as must as a caring or any other type of mother. It's just expressed in a different manner.
No, a domineering mother doesn't know how to love and the child is unfortunately caught in this trap where guilt - such as how much sacrifices she has made for you - control and manipulate your every thought, sometimes even when you are not aware of it. Then, you are in a relationship with someone that you are not happy with only because your mother approves, for instance, and you live a life of misery thinking you are doing the right thing, when really you are subjectively obeying and doing the right thing by her.
Reply to TimeLine That is true, but it depends on one's personality. I hate being controlled, so I was never one to tolerate that. But that's both a good thing and a bad thing - it does make me, to a certain extent, anti-social, since society does involve in many things subjecting yourself to the control of others to one extent or another.
Then the issue seems to be what state of mind is the right one to be in and how to maintain such a state of mind. Again, the Buddhists and Stoics have the answer.
I feel like I'm watching life happen within a globe, and I'm outside the globe.
Okay but practically, what do you feel? Do you feel ignored by the group of people? Do you feel like you can't have the interactions you want with them?
No, a domineering mother doesn't know how to love and the child is unfortunately caught in this trap where guilt - such as how much sacrifices she has made for you - control and manipulate your every thought, sometimes even when you are not aware of it. Then, you are in a relationship with someone that you are not happy with only because your mother approves, for instance, and you live a life of misery thinking you are doing the right thing, when really you are subjectively obeying and doing the right thing by her.
You need to cut the umbilical cord.
Yes, but is my love for my domineering mother any less worthy than for any other type of mother? It is still love.
Then the issue seems to be what state of mind is the right one to be in and how to maintain such a state of mind. Again, the Buddhists and Stoics have the answer.
Yeah, exactly, so you should put down the Schopenhauer :P
Then the issue seems to be what state of mind is the right one to be in and how to maintain such a state of mind. Again, the Buddhists and Stoics have the answer.
I always found Heidegger's interpretation of the origin of anxiety to be illuminating: being-in-the-world. That lack of a distinct object contrasts it with fear and also makes it much more unsettling. This idea resonates with me as someone who has an intimate familiarity with the mood.
I've come to see it in somewhat positive terms, however, as precipitating that transformative "turning around of the soul" that the ancients apparently associated with the philosophical life.
I think H actually appropriated this insight from Kierkegaard without giving him proper credit. Maybe even Augustine.
In my opinion, becuase you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path. I can hardly be a businessman and a Christian mystic in the true sense of the word at one and the same time. So those paths seem to me to be more individualistic, and less social, and for me personally, I don't think that's the right thing. I want to be in society, and contribute.
Okay but practically, what do you feel? Do you feel ignored by the group of people? Do you feel like you can't have the interactions you want with them?
Yes, that's the practical interpretation of my analogy.
As long as ethics and right conduct is the main concern, I have no prejudice or discriminate between nominalist names.
To be fair, I'm just now delving into different forms of mysticism. But it's clear to me so far that not all playing fields are equal, even if there is a unity of method, sometimes, or a unity of goal other times.
Yes, that's the practical interpretation of my analogy.
Okay so then if you feel ignored, and you feel you can't interact with them, all that means is that you haven't learned the "unspoken" rules of social interaction, so you feel threatened because you always feel you could make a mistake if you act in such an environment.
That is true, but it depends on one's personality. I hate being controlled, so I was never one to tolerate that. But that's both a good thing and a bad thing - it does make me, to a certain extent, anti-social, since society does involve in many things subjecting yourself to the control of others to one extent or another.
Same with me, but it still affected me in ways that I was not even aware, for instance where I completely avoided relationships out of fear that it will be the same as what I experienced or witnessed. It is all about learning to articulate your own voice and that takes time, courage, and a lot of hard work, sometimes too hard that most concede to living a lie.
In my opinion, becuase you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path. I can hardly be a businessman and a Christian mystic in the true sense of the word at one and the same time.
That's probably because mysticism and business are at odds. Who is your master?
So those paths seem to me to be more individualistic, and less social, and for me personally, I don't think that's the right thing. I want to be in society, and contribute.
I'm still learning, but there seem to have been mystics who were very political, very socially religious, etc.
Okay so then if you feel ignored, and you feel you can't interact with them, all that means is that you haven't learned the "unspoken" rules of social interaction, so you feel threatened because you always feel you could make a mistake if you act in such an environment.
Correct...
I'm not actually as socially inept as what I'm saying might suggest. It's just specific situations.
Yes, but is my love for my domineering mother any less worthy than for any other type of mother? It is still love.
You could, but incorrectly. If you really loved her, you would understand that she is domineering but would not let her dominate you. That is because you cannot love others until you first love yourself. Hence why "selfish" is a funny word; we tend to think it virtuous to sacrifice ourselves for others, but that is one great lie and yet those that act or behave like narcissists are usually the most vulnerable and have the least amount of love for themselves and that is why they cannot love others.
I always found Heidegger's interpretation of the origin of anxiety to be illuminating: being-in-the-world. That lack of a distinct object contrasts it with fear and also makes it much more unsettling. This idea resonates with me as someone who has an intimate familiarity with the mood.
I've come to see it in somewhat positive terms, however, as precipitating that transformative "turning around of the soul" that the ancients apparently associated with the philosophical life.
Never read Heidegger in greeat detail. But, there's the question of importance of desires. Which one's do we decide to entertain and for what reason? Psychological, moral, ethical, practical, rational?
Same with me, but it still affected me in ways that I was not even aware, for instance where I completely avoided relationships out of fear that it will be the same as what I experienced or witnessed. It is all about learning to articulate your own voice and that takes time, courage, and a lot of hard work, sometimes too hard that most concede to living a lie.
Fear is ingrained in us, so there is no getting rid of it. I don't care if I feel fear about somehing - if I have to do it to reach my goal, then I will do it. So then it seems to me that it turns out that just because someone caused you to have certain fears, it doesn't mean that they really slowed you down. It's YOU who slowed yourself down, because you decided to listen to those fears in the first place.
Why couldn't the mystic embrace everyday life? The transformation of the everyday from something trivial to the (e.g.) miraculous unfolding of the divine in the seemingly mundane, or some such, makes intuitive sense to me.
Anyhow, it seems like this paradoxical sort of 'mysticism' is common in Zen Buddhism at least, although I could be wrong to associate the two.
Fear is ingrained in us, so there is no getting rid of it. I don't care if I feel fear about somehing - if I have to do it to reach my goal, then I will do it. So then it seems to me that it turns out that just because someone caused you to have certain fears, it doesn't mean that they really slowed you down. It's YOU who slowed yourself down, because you decided to listen to those fears in the first place.
That is not the point, the point is that I was not aware of it at conscious level. I believed wholeheartedly that I did not want to be in a relationship, that men were pointless and so I remained single willingly. I only began to realise that I was unhappy several years ago and it took me several years of just speaking about bits and pieces of my past just to make me realise that.
I was also terribly afraid of being alone because I had abandonment issues, so I intentionally wanted to be on my own as though I was fighting the fear. All of these battles that I had were really because I had bad parents and only accepting that it was not me did I start to think for myself.
You are absolutely spot-on that most of our decisions appear aligned with fear, but these fears are irrational and it is up to us to recognise that.
That's probably because mysticism and business are at odds. Who is your master?
My being. My goal is to express my being most fully in an ethical manner, not to fit some sort of ideal.
So as I said in the beginning, these things depend on your personality. My personality is such that I want to have a positive impact on the world and society, and everything is ordered by this master-drive.
So it is most useless to tell me that mysticism and business are at odds - because we already know, a priori, what I will choose.
I always found Heidegger's interpretation of the origin of anxiety to be illuminating: being-in-the-world. That lack of a distinct object contrasts it with fear and also makes it much more unsettling. This idea resonates with me as someone who has an intimate familiarity with the mood.
I've come to see it in somewhat positive terms, however, as precipitating that transformative "turning around of the soul" that the ancients apparently associated with the philosophical life.
As far as I see it, all that is, is just a (negative) way to frame the idea of responsibility. You are responsible - and that's what causes anxiety.
Why couldn't the mystic embrace everyday life? The transformation of the everyday from something trivial to the (e.g.) miraculous unfolding of the divine in the seemingly mundane, or some such, makes intuitive sense to me.
You could, theoretically, but I don't see many practical examples of that. Also, it again depends on what you're searching for, which depends on your personality - as Heraclitus said, you will find that which you seek.
Never read Heidegger in greeat detail. But, there's the question of importance of desires. Which one's do we decide to entertain and for what reason? Psychological, moral, ethical, practical, rational?
Those are questions that each person must decide for him or herself, albeit within certain social, historical (and other) constraints. Of course looking to the wisdom of the sages of times long past for possible answers--rather than, say, advertisers of consumer goods or modern politicians--is something that those with limited intellect and ability (like myself) have recourse to.
That is not the point, the point is that I was not aware of it at conscious level. I believed wholeheartedly that I did not want to be in a relationship, the men were pointless and so I remained single willingly. I only began to realise that I was unhappy several years ago and it took me several years of just speaking about bits and pieces of my past just to make me realise that.
I was also terribly afraid of being alone because I had abandonment issues, so I intentionally wanted to be on my own as though I was fighting the fear. All of these battles that I had were really because I had bad parents and only accepting that it was not me did I start to think for myself.
I have never had such an experience, so I can't comment. For me, I'm unaware of something if I don't want to be aware of it. But, I found, that one can hold even the most humiliating things in awareness, and nothing bad happens. It's just thoughts. When you do that, you gain cognitive distancing from them, so in effect, it doesn't matter what they are. What they are is a function of your history, but your history becomes irrelevant.
As far as I see it, all that is, is just a (negative) way to frame the idea of responsibility. You are responsible - and that's what causes anxiety.
I think that's part of it, the part that 'existentialists' like Sartre latched onto, but I believe it's deeper than that for Heidegger. That the world is, that I am and yet hardly know who I am... These basic facts, which ultimately have no conclusive answer (I know many would dispute this) can leave one in a state of dizzying perplexity.
You could, theoretically, but I don't see many practical examples of that. Also, it again depends on what you're searching for, which depends on your personality - as Heraclitus said, you will find that which you seek.
Remember the story of Heraclitus warming himself from the Essay on Humanism? That's a perfect example, perhaps, of the divine everydayness that the philosopher is tapped into yet which eludes the common people.
I'm not actually as socially inept as what I'm saying might suggest. It's just specific situations.
And if you were socially inept, how would you feel?
There are a few ways out of this - the most relevant one, is to understand the basics of human interactions, and how to disagree with people without causing conflicts. That's important. And after that, to know what you want. And after that, not to be attached to outcomes with regards to social situations - but rather to doing your best in applying what you learned in the previous steps.
That the world is, that I am and yet hardly know who I am... These basic facts, which ultimately have no conclusive answer (I know many would dispute this) can leave one in a state of dizzying perplexity.
You generalise the question so much, that all meaning is thrown out the window. What you are, and who you are, must be embedded in the world.
My being. My goal is to express my being most fully in an ethical manner, not to fit some sort of ideal.
So as I said in the beginning, these things depend on your personality. My personality is such that I want to have a positive impact on the world and society, and everything is ordered by this master-drive.
So it is most useless to tell me that mysticism and business are at odds - because we already know, a priori, what I will choose.
I have no issue with that; but you said that, in your opinion, "you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that [mystical] path." You were responding to me asking Posty why the Christian mystics, for instance, wouldn't be on par with the Buddhists or Stoics. So, you're essentially suggesting that the mystic path is inferior, because you "cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path". That I take issue with.
Remember the story of Heraclitus warming himself from the Essay on Humanism? That's a perfect example, perhaps, of the divine everydayness that the philosopher is tapped into yet which eludes the common people.
Yes - however, I am skeptical of the elitism of the philosophers, especially when promoted by philosophers. The philosopher wants to tell society that they need him - in fact, that it is only he who can save them. Doesn't the manager, the politician, and everyone else do that?
I have no issue with that; but you said that, in your opinion, "you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that [mystical] path." You were responding to me asking Posty why the Christian mystics, for instance, wouldn't be on par with the Buddhists or Stoics. So, you're essentially suggesting that the mystic path is inferior, because you "cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path". That I take issue with.
Perhaps that's wrongly phrased by me. You can be in the world and a mystic, it's just less effective, in terms of results, than if you were a Stoic.
And if you were socially inept, how would you feel?
Why do you keep asking about how I feel in various situations without then expounding on my answers? All you've done so far when I answer with my feelings is tell me how I probably then feel, which has been correct, but all you're doing is describing the situations that I'm already familiar with.
Why is there something rather than nothing is a general question that likely has no ultimate answer. And, as I understand it, that also means that our lives are ultimately mysterious and lacking in solid foundation.
That's a discomforting thought for some people, and we predictably try to evade the question by appealing to firm ground as found through religion, science, or whatever, with which we can tether our own identity.
There are a few ways out of this - the most relevant one, is to understand the basics of human interactions, and how to disagree with people without causing conflicts. That's important. And after that, to know what you want. And after that, not to be attached to outcomes with regards to social situations - but rather to doing your best in applying what you learned in the previous steps.
Well why is there something rather than nothing is probably a general question that ultimately has no answer. And, as I understand it, that also means that our lives are ultimately mysterious and lacking in solid foundation.
That's a discomforting thought for some people, and we predictably try to evade the question by appealing to firm ground as found through religion, science, or whatever with which we can tether our own identity.
The funny thing though, is that we already find ourselves rooted in a solid foundation. That is what our society, culture, history, etc. provides. So we awaken, when we do, already anchored in that foundation.
Yes, I understand all of that already, and find it borderline offensive that someone would suggest I wouldn't know any of that. But that's the danger of revealing something so "mysterious" to the outside world as having been home-schooled. It's this mysterious thing; "did you do schoolwork in your pajamas???? lollll"
That's not true. The world is both contingent and necessary. My past is necessary - it couldn't not be what it was. My future is contingent. Past and future don't exist in-themselves, but rather in the present. So the present moment is made of both necessity and contingency, and one experiences both.
When you say that "the world is contingent", I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I do know what you mean. You mean that the world, and all its history, etc. could have been different. That's empty speculation to me, because it's still true that today we have a certain fixed and necessary past.
Yes, I understand all of that already, and find it borderline offensive that someone would suggest I wouldn't know any of that.
Why is it offensive? I didn't know that, until when I was like 19 or so. Again, finding offence is the problem. If someone were to say you're a retard, why would you find that offensive? That person actually can't harm you - either you really are a retard, in which case, the person does nothing by so saying, or you're not a retard, in which case the person's words don't have a magical ability to change that.
Of course we do have a tradition which provides us with our possibilities, while also closing others off. I'll grant you that.
However much we recoil at the idea, there's no solid, stable, enduring self to be found. This is an anxiety-provoking thought for many people, and again it seems like a good deal of energy is expended on avoiding the very issue and instead fleeing into distractions and comforting illusions.
However much we recoil at the idea, there's no solid, stable, enduring self to be found. This is an anxiety-provoking thought for many people, and again it seems like a good deal of energy is expended on avoiding the very issue and instead fleeing into distractions and comforting illusions.
Yes, there is a historically evolving self, which always has elements which remain stable.
I have never had such an experience, so I can't comment. For me, I'm unaware of something if I don't want to be aware of it. But, I found, that one can hold even the most humiliating things in awareness, and nothing bad happens. It's just thoughts. When you do that, you gain cognitive distancing from them, so in effect, it doesn't matter what they are. What they are is a function of your history, but your history becomes irrelevant.
You can't be aware of something you are unaware of, that is what being unaware is. But aside from that, yes, sometimes those humiliating experiences can almost be empowering when you are able to face them. That distance is objective consciousness.
Reply to Noble Dust That's why I say anxiety and fear cannot be escaped. You just have to accept them - accept your weaknesses and vulnerabilities. That is the only way.
I'm just looking for some motherfucking empathy, but nevermmind.
Well, you probably want me to say: "ohh poor Noble Dust, he was homeschooled, no wonder he's struggling socially, etc." - but I don't want to say that, because I don't believe it. I don't believe in the limitations you place on yourself, and I don't believe homeschooling is a negative thing. You seem to believe it, and now you want me to validate that belief, but I can't do that, since I don't share it.
And the process is initiated with feelings of depression, disassociation or anxiety before one can become clearly aware through an objective understanding. That is why those feelings should not be halted or stopped with medications - unless it is extremely serious - or submerged in drugs and alcohol, but through communicating about it through writing, or friends, or art.
You seem to believe it, and now you want me to validate that belief, but I can't do that, since I don't share it.
All I did was mentioned a point of anxiety for myself, because you asked. We're talking about anxiety. You haven't seen me state whether I think there are positive aspects to home-schooling.
A few of them that I'm comfortable sharing are social anxiety from being home-schooled and generally shut off from society (thus feeling like an observer watching society happen, not a participant), as well as anxiety about career.
This alienation is not as uncommon as you think, on the contrary it could actually be an acute existential awareness. I would imagine that your difficulties are mostly because you are unable to genuinely connect, as though futile or the experience does not contain any substance or matter.
A humility of sensing your limitations that you will not actually be capable of reaching an awareness of the totality of things is symbolic of a maturity of character; you reach an impasse which is to accept that there exists no meaning in our lives other than what we create. So, happiness and our connections are formed as a clean slate, anew, the moment we begin creating it. Otherwise, you can find meaning in a spiritual realm that you give existence to perhaps as a need to form some symbiotic attachment to something that is intangible only to avoid that feeling of disconnection.
Perhaps this is the anxiety-provoking neuroticism derived from trying to model or envision or rationalize the world rather than for what is actually is?
Yes - however, I am skeptical of the elitism of the philosophers, especially when promoted by philosophers. The philosopher wants to tell society that they need him - in fact, that it is only he who can save them. Doesn't the manager, the politician, and everyone else do that?
Missed this earlier.
I would add that Heraclitus is said to have left his political community in order to live in solitude. He didn't want to lead them. And he apparently did this despite the fact that his family was well-connected, and he was in line to rule the city or petty kingdom upon his father's passing.
Whatever the case, I think Heraclitus was one of the few genuine thinkers who wasn't overly (if at all) concerned with gaining the esteem of his contemporaries, but rather aimed instead for the good opinion of posterity, and a small percentage of posterity at that. Philosophy itself is somewhat elitist, no? It runs in direct conflict with the values of society; well, at least in the ancient world.
He was clearly misanthropic, but we should keep in mind that he held the political and philosophical 'elites' of his day in much more contempt than even the unlearned hoi polloi. Somewhat like an ancient version of Wittgenstein in that regard, I suppose. Nietzsche and Heidegger, too, to a certain extent.
In regards to my philosophical soothing ideas of what combat the anxiety of impermanence and change within philosophy are mathematics and (I hold neither in higher esteem than the other, only on equal footing) logic,
How strange that I'm not great in neither or both.
Perhaps this is the anxiety-provoking neuroticism derived from trying to model or envision or rationalize the world rather than for what is actually is?
Yes, I believe so. But I could very well be wrong and should admit that I, too, have my illusions that help me cope.
In regards to my philosophical soothing ideas of what combat the anxiety of impermanence and change within philosophy are mathematics and (I hold neither in higher esteem than the other, only on equal footing) logic,
Science helps release us from the grips of our imagination as @Erik states that we use to help us cope.
Science helps release us from the grips of our imagination as Erik states that we use to help us cope.
How strange that no philosopher, with their amazing intellect and ability to perceive the world, were not able to see the coming future of man creating a deity from his own labor...
Reply to Posty McPostface I like to explore thinkers and traditions that seem to embrace a certain element of flux and change. Taoism seems to be in this camp, as does Heidegger's later philosophy--drawing heavily on Heraclitus and Parmenides, or, more accurately, his interpretation of their thought, which he felt was much more similar than is typically portrayed.
How strange that no philosopher, with their amazing intellect and ability to perceive the world, were not able to see the coming future of man creating a deity from his own labor...
You can also have the law of non-contradiction and such paradoxical logic remains positive, just like how Foucoult speaks of power or discourse where people submit to authoritarianism and yet doing so alleviates their anxiety as they submerge their individual identity into the nucleus of the whole. This singularity of God that we cannot ever really know or understand - if adopting a Kantian attitude - is to understand it as a thought of ultimate reality, that by devoting oneself to the knowledge of God or getting closer to this whole or Nature, one is taking those steps towards ultimate good or moral unity. It is a formulation that mirrors a transformative individual that implicitly mirrors our behaviour.
Why do you find those things anxiety-inducing? To find them anxiety-inducing I think you must harbour the belief that you cannot or may not be able to cope with them. If you feel in control and capable, then you perceive change as exciting, instead of something to be feared.
Well, I am trying to provide you with things to think about that you might find helpful, but it seems that my ideas aren't very good for you.
unenlightenedJanuary 19, 2018 at 11:46#1453970 likes
I find it odd that folks want not to be anxious, not to be vulnerable, not to be influenced, not to be sensitive. It's what Freud called the 'death wish.
I think it's a Sufi saying: When the stone falls on the egg, alas for the egg; but when the egg falls on the stone, alas for the egg.
I find it odd that folks want not to be anxious, not to be vulnerable, not to be influenced, not to be sensitive. It's what Freud called the 'death wish.
There are normal levels of anxiety and then not. It's not that people want ice in their veins. It's that they don't want to suffer excessive anxiety.
I find it odd that folks want not to be anxious, not to be vulnerable, not to be influenced, not to be sensitive. It's what Freud called the 'death wish.
Who do you think wants that? I think that many people, to a certain extent or another, realise that not being vulnerable is not good, since it makes you weak. Those who dream of being invincible, dream of a totalitarian state, where everything is under tight control, and every little thing that isn't under control poses an exceedingly great threat. So being invulnerable doesn't lead to flourishing - it leads to a constraining of existence.
But that's not the relevant bit. What people really want is to be powerful or strong enough to deal with their vulnerabilities and not be paralyzed from living the way they want to live. So that's what people mean when they say they don't want to be anxious anymore - they want anxiety to stop controlling their lives, so, for example, they can take the steps they need to take to move closer to their goals.
Nicholas Nassim Taleb is quite relevant here. He breaks things into fragile, robust, and antifragile. Fragile is what people who experience crippling anxiety are. So from fragile, they can move either to robust, or antifragile. Robust is okay, just that it's static & brittle - it resists small changes well, but big changes destroy it. Antifragile doesn't only resist small changes, it prospers from big changes. I think that's where people want to be.
It's that they don't want to suffer excessive anxiety.
In my case, this wasn't the issue - or better said, I realised over time that it wasn't the issue. The moment I stopped listening to my anxiety in some (relatively) small decisions, then I didn't stop feeling the anxiety (at least not immediately, over time it did mostly decrease in intensity), but rather it was no longer blocking me - so I acted normally, and behaved in ways that were productive for me and helped me get closer to my goals, without feeling any different. I was still feeling incredibly anxious basically, but no longer letting it dictate my behaviour. So my behaviour changed, but anxiety remained the same initially. Over time, I also got (to some extent) out of those anxious and ruminative habits, though I do still experience it every now and again, especially when I overwork or am very stressed.
I suffer more from apathiety than anxiety. You might think I made that word up, but meh, who cares?
My older son was driving his car following my younger son in his car and he ran into him, so now I have two wrecked cars. And, so you know, when I say they were driving their cars, I really mean my cars. I called the insurance company and said I wanted to make claims against them for wrecking my cars, and they said "Nope, doesn't work that way" arguing something about how I can't make a claim against myself since we're all on the same insurance policy. I then remembered that they were in the business of accepting premiums, not paying benefits. So, I got my oldest a much nicer new car (not "new" new, but new to him), which was his punishment for wrecking his car. My youngest son will have to drive with a bent up trunk until he graduates high school this year and then he'll have to get a new car I guess. I mean my boys can't do without. That'd be silly.
These wrecks are really going to set me back. I'm going to have eat domestic caviar for the next couple of weeks. Blah.
I had an idea. I'm going to create my own vocabulary like Kant. Let's get started, shall we?
Ingenualonlia - Having a single idea in your head that dies of loneliness
Philodetestia - The love of hate.
Monopedfelinia - A cat suffering from having one leg.
SilencabsenciabutBaden - the sound of a tree falling in the woods when no one is around but Baden.
Congenital Citrucardiosubstituto - Being born with the unfortunate condition of having an orange in place of a heart.
I've got to work now, so I've just listed the obvious ones above, but I'm sure there are more that need to be said.
Is it legal to drive that early, under 18? So in the US you can't drink alcohol until you're 21, but you can drive under 18? :s That's one strange law...
I think drinking should be legal much earlier. 14-16 sounds good. I never understood why we have such harsh laws against drinking, but not against activities which are seriously more risky if something goes wrong.
I called the insurance company and said I wanted to make claims against them for wrecking my cars, and they said "Nope, doesn't work that way" arguing something about how I can't make a claim against myself since we're all on the same insurance policy.
You need to get a good lawyer to weasel your way around that. Maybe @Ciceronianus the White?
Deleted UserJanuary 19, 2018 at 14:51#1454200 likes
Reply to Agustino Why would one want to increase the chances of something terrible to happen?
Reply to Lone Wolf But isn't drinking safer than driving? There's a higher risk of dying or seriously hurting yourself from a car accident than from getting drunk, no?
Is it legal to drive that early, under 18? So in the US you can't drink alcohol until you're 21, but you can drive under 18? :s That's one strange law...
You can get a learner's permit at 15 where you can only drive with a parent in the car. At 16 you can get a full license, although I think there are some restrictions about how many can be in the car with you. You can't drink until 21.
In the US, it's nearly impossible to get around without a car unless you live in one of the few urban areas with meaningful public transportation. Laws are determined as much by necessity as consistency. As you can imagine, though, insurance rates for those under 25 are astronomical. Young people are terrible drivers.
I don't agree with your thoughts on lowering the drinking age. I know some countries have more lax views than the US in that regard, but the drinking culture in the US is not like other countries. Teenagers get really wasted and do really stupid shit over here. Maybe it's different in sophisticated Europe, I don't know, but the last thing I'd ever allow is a bunch of 15-16 years olds pounding beers on my deck.
Deleted UserJanuary 19, 2018 at 15:19#1454240 likes
But isn't drinking safer than driving? There's a higher risk of dying or seriously hurting yourself from a car accident than from getting drunk, no?
No, drinking reduces your reaction time and thinking abilities. Hence, it is more dangerous to be drunk and not know what you are doing than it is to drive with full abilities of reasoning. Drunk driving is an issue though...
It is my understanding that it is violence to call a woman a girl.
Did you see "Is Calling A Trans Woman A Man (Or Vice Versa) A Form Of Violence?" I didn't see any comments from you in there. Bitter Crank, some others, and I took the old fogey approach - Treat people with respect, but don't mess with our language. A bunch of sensitive new age guys took the opposite side - that it is violence to fart in a bus.
It is my understanding that it is violence to call a woman a girl.
I'm 45 and went hiking with a male friend here in Spain a while ago, and a guy who passed us said "Hola chicos". Spanish has the benefit of having two words for both boy and girl: niño and niña for children, and chico and chica more generally*. As far as I can tell, niña is never used for women. This might dissolve the issue of violence (unless perhaps chica is used to refer to or address women much more than chico is used for men).
*This usage may be reversed in other Spanish-speaking countries.
I'm 45 and went hiking with a male friend here in Spain a while ago, and a guy who passed us said "Hola chicos". Spanish has the benefit of having two words for both boy and girl: niño and niña for children, and chico and chica more generally*. As far as I can tell, niña is never used for women. This might dissolve the issue of violence (unless perhaps chica is used to refer to or address women much more than chico is used for men).
*This usage may be reversed in other Spanish-speaking countries.
I have always liked the way people in the southern US can say "Y'all," to refer to mixed or unspecified groups. Up here in the northeast, we say "you guys." Some people say "guys and gals," which is creepy. Most women I know recognize that referring to them as "you guys" is inclusionary, a way of showing the same level of respect we show to men.
Also, I was being tongue in cheek.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 19, 2018 at 16:09#1454410 likes
I think drinking should be legal much earlier. 14-16 sounds good. I never understood why we have such harsh laws against drinking — Agustino
I can't remember what the last dumbest thing was that you said, but this has to take top spot.
If I remember, Agustino also thinks the age of sexual consent should be 14-16. I think 18 for drinking makes sense. Maybe graduation from high school. That way it would be less likely older kids would buy for younger.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 19, 2018 at 16:32#1454450 likes
Reply to T Clark Why'd you have to go and add for idiocy to my list, Clarky? >:o
If I remember, Agustino also thinks the age of sexual consent should be 14-16. I think 18 for drinking makes sense. Maybe graduation from high school. That way it would be less likely older kids would buy for younger
Well adulthood is bar mitzvah age, 13 for boys, 12 for girls.
No, drinking reduces your reaction time and thinking abilities.
Yeah, but why is that dangerous? I think it depends on what you're doing or where you are while drunk. If you are in a safe place and if you're not doing any dangerous activity, I don't think drinking is dangerous (apart from the danger of alcohol intoxication if you drink way too much).
but the drinking culture in the US is not like other countries.
Interesting, how is it different? I started drinking when I was probably 14, and quit at around 21 or so. Now I very rarely drink, and only on a festive occasion (Christmas, etc.).
In Europe, it is 14-16 in many places. If I'm not mistaken, in the UK the age of consent is 16. It makes sense. You're old enough by then.
I wasn't trying to reopen the discussion, only pointing out that your opinions were consistent and reflect a particular understanding of the level of maturity of younger teens.
Reply to T Clark Yeah, but I would place driving at 18 (at the least, including motorcycles & scooters). If I could really pick an age, I'd put it even higher, at 21 or so. Driving can be a really dangerous activity. Though as Hanover says, sometimes it cannot be avoided, and is necessary.
16, unless one of them is in a position of authority over the other, in which case it's 18.
I can't remember who on the forum it was who taught me the real meaning of the phrase "The exception that proves the rule," but I finally get to use it. If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 18 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 18 or older.
Yeah, but I would place driving at 18 (at the least, including motorcycles & scooters). If I could really pick an age, I'd put it even higher, at 21 or so. Driving can be a really dangerous activity. Though as Hanover says, sometimes it cannot be avoided, and is necessary.
Maybe in the US. In Europe, if you live in a city, you pretty much don't need a car. I get around without driving - the only time I have to drive is if I'm going countryside or something. And I dislike driving, so stressful.
But within the city - public transport, or if you're running late or you want to be fast, Uber or taxi.
If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 18 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 18 or older.
If we're being strict logicians, this doesn't work. If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 12 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older?
A peculiar saying, as exceptions disprove the rule.
I had understood that the phrase means that an exception tests the rule, which is consistent with your understanding. Although that interpretation has been used, it is not the original meaning. Here's from Wikipedia:
"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning has been interpreted or misinterpreted in various ways. Its true definition, or at least original meaning, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."
If we're being strict logicians, this doesn't work. If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 12 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older?
If there is a rule that specifically says it's wrong to have sex with someone under 12, that means it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older.
If there is a rule that specifically says it's wrong to have sex with someone under 12, that means it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older.
If there's a rule that says "you can't park here", does it then mean that you can park anywhere else?
If there's a rule that says "you can't park here", does it then mean that you can park anywhere else?
Actually, parking is an example that's often used in relation to the phrase. A sign that says "no parking between 11 pm and 7 am" means parking is allowed all other times.
For me, there is no activity as stressful as driving... I've heard and seen quite a few people (including friends) who died due to being involved in car accidents or were left seriously crippled, or had serious legal issues from hitting someone (not another car, but a person). That kind of risk doesn't seem worth it if it can be avoided.
For me, there is no activity as stressful as driving... I've heard and seen quite a few people (including friends) who either died due to being involved in car accidents or were left seriously crippled, or had serious legal issues from hitting someone. That kind of risk doesn't seem worth it if it can be avoided.
US society is really set up so that driving is hard to avoid. Public transit and rail have always been the poor stepchild of the transportation family. Highways are the favorite son. Maybe that's changing. Maybe not.
But that's not the example I used. My example proves I'm right. So nyah!
Not the same at all. Your sign says no parking here ever. Mine says no parking here between 11 and 7. That means parking here during other periods is ok. Neither say anything about anywhere else.
There was a sign on my street that said "Slow Watch for Kids," and my dad used to ask why the kids wanted a slow watch. Then there was the insulting sign that said "Slow Kids at Play." They couldn't help it.
I would imagine that your difficulties are mostly because you are unable to genuinely connect, as though futile or the experience does not contain any substance or matter.
A humility of sensing your limitations that you will not actually be capable of reaching an awareness of the totality of things is symbolic of a maturity of character; you reach an impasse which is to accept that there exists no meaning in our lives other than what we create. So, happiness and our connections are formed as a clean slate, anew, the moment we begin creating it.
I assume you're bringing this up because you're saying it's the remedy to anxiety. I can't see how it would be. And the idea that we create our own meaning is essentially nihilistic; if we create our own meaning, then we each create a solipsistic fantasy more fantastic than the spirituality which you attempt to rationalize in your next sentence.
I assume you're bringing this up because you're saying it's the remedy to anxiety. I can't see how it would be. And the idea that we create our own meaning is essentially nihilistic; if we create our own meaning, then we each create a solipsistic fantasy more fantastic than the spirituality which you attempt to rationalize in your next sentence.
Keep in mind that there are people who, because of who they are and the lives they lead, don't get it. They can stand outside our lives, maybe even their own, and give opinions, but we are stuck inside. Before you can have the kind of perspective TL is talking about, you need to be able to stand outside yourself. As you know, easier said than done. There are people who just want you to "snap out of it," as if we wouldn't if we could.
That's not an excuse or a way of avoiding responsibility, it's just the way things are.
There was a sign on my street that said "Slow Watch for Kids," and my dad used to ask why the kids wanted a slow watch. Then there was the insulting sign that said "Slow Kids at Play." They couldn't help it.
My current favorite is "Drive as if your kids lived here." I always say you should keep your kids off the street as if I drove here.
There are people who just want you to "snap out of it," as if we wouldn't if we could.
Well, I did suffer from anxiety in my late teens, and I did find that you actually do have to snap out of it, or ignore the anxiety that you feel - pretty much. It's like when you're running - you have to get used to the discomfort you're feeling, and cease wanting it to stop, otherwise you'll stop running.
Well, I did suffer from anxiety in my late teens, and I did find that you actually do have to snap out of it, or ignore the anxiety that you feel - pretty much. It's like when you're running - you have to get used to the discomfort you're feeling, and cease wanting it to stop, otherwise you'll stop running.
Different things work for different people. For many, most, saying snap out of it won't work.
Yeah, but why is that dangerous? I think it depends on what you're doing or where you are while drunk. If you are in a safe place and if you're not doing any dangerous activity, I don't think drinking is dangerous (apart from the danger of alcohol intoxication if you drink way too much).
It's just not a good idea to let children drink poison that impairs their ability to reason.
As I've shared with a number of you previously, I stubbed my toe and I did want to update you on its progress. I have day to day been coating it with Vaseline and wrapping it in gauze and then carefully putting my sock on top of it. Things are getting better, and with the constant support and prayers from family and friends, and most of all of you kind souls, I think I'm going to recover just fine. I can't begin to tell you how important your support has been. Thank you and God bless you. I am so humbled.
Reply to Posty McPostface A case that is dismissed "with prejudice" is over and done with, totally. "Without prejudice" might be revisited. The case against TimeLine has been dismissed without prejudice.
A case dismissed with prejudice means the judge dismissed the case because you're white. If he dismisses without prejudice it means he'd have dismissed it even if you weren't white.
Jesus Christ - you banned ProgrammingGodJordan more than a week ago. Would you please shut down "Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!" How can it possibly make sense to ban a member while keeping the discussion he was banned for running. It's like hearing a dead guys voice on an answering machine.
Reply to T ClarkWe are in the process of blotting out his name for all eternity and have been working dilgently with a fallen angel toward that end. At some point you will no longer have thoughts of him. Quoting T Clark
It's like hearing a dead guys voice on an answering machine.
This is Corky, the fallen angel we're using. I found him in the Yellow Pages I keep on the shelf under our rotary phone that little Joey sits on so he can reach his fork at the dinner table.
Feel free to use that as your avatar. It's pretty cool.
Quite confusing experience, don't you think? I stopped at 13:30, after the entity sent a letter to the RMC informing that allusions to the New Testament had happened and a miracle had occurred.
But for clarity (??), when he says "the entity" did this or that, he means that the entity did it through him, as far as I'm aware. Not that that really makes it any more clear.
Jesus Christ - you banned ProgrammingGodJordan more than a week ago. Would you please shut down "Belief (not just religious belief) ought to be abolished!" How can it possibly make sense to ban a member while keeping the discussion he was banned for running. It's like hearing a dead guys voice on an answering machine.
Others less silly than ProgrammingGodJordan and his various sockpuppets are still having conversations in that discussion.
I called the insurance company and said I wanted to make claims against them for wrecking my cars, and they said "Nope, doesn't work that way" arguing something about how I can't make a claim against myself since we're all on the same insurance policy.
Lololol! Hanover! This gem is one for the ages. Especially for those of us who do or have worked in the insurance industry.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 20, 2018 at 12:22#1456470 likes
Accountants seem to be some of the dumbest people I've ever met. I've changed 4 already over past 2 years, and this one isn't much better. If I give you instructions to reserve some names from a state authority in my name, and you have them in order of preference, labelled 1, 2, 3, with the written statement that no. 1 represents the "most preferred" option, why is it that you reserve number 3, so then I have to be a little sneaky snake and find out from others that numbers 1 and 2 (as I had thought) were actually available, and reserve them myself on a Saturday? >:o >:o >:o And this is already after not doing anything and slowing everything down for about 1 week... Not to mention not informing me of a law change, which risked increasing my taxes, and which I risked forgetting to declare because of that reason, which I just found out about today... >:o
Sun Tzu said that if the general gives unclear instructions, and the soldiers don't execute well, it's the general's fault - but if the general gives clear instructions, and his soldiers don't execute well, then they are already headless >:O .
Deleted UserJanuary 20, 2018 at 13:58#1456680 likes
Reply to Cavacava Personally I think that thread was a joke - that's not philosophy. I have no qualms with having such threads in The Lounge, but if they're placed in different categories, they ought to be deleted or moved, imo.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 21, 2018 at 18:39#1459230 likes
It seemed to be about the height of Mt. Everest. it was addressed to Apo, perhaps in response, related to the thread on Wittgenstein, Dummett, and anti-realism
Take the height of Mt Everest. As a mountain climber, it doesn't really matter if it is X metres high, give or take another minute or two of climbing. At some level of truth-telling, our interest fuzzes out. The pull of the moon might have some measurable effect on Mt Everest so its "true height" changes by nanometres constantly all day. But this becomes noise - unless we establish some purpose that makes a more exact measurement seem reasonable.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 21, 2018 at 19:07#1459360 likes
It seemed to be about the height of Mt. Everest. it was addressed to Apo, perhaps in response, related to the thread on Wittgenstein, Dummett, and anti-realism
Ah that was the topic. I remember a thread back in time that was something to the effect of was Mt. Everest the highest mountain in the world before it was named Mt. Everest. I am probably not doing it any justice but I remember getting turned around and backward on the thread and then a year or two later reading an article about Mt. Everest not being the height that it was thought to be but I think it was taller.
Oh well, sometimes Banno's threads take time to percolate and he is not a "thinker" that likes to spoon feed people so there are times where you just need to let it run a bit to see it's meaning.
It's a great teaching style but not everyone's flavor.
Well, not my world, that's for sure :P . On the one hand, just sex doesn't feel good, makes you feel like an object. On the other, I have no time for a meaningful relationship at the moment. So then, in no way does sex rule my world.
I also don't float around that kind of party-going crowd for whom sex rules the world. And neither do I interact with a lot of young people in my day to day activities - mostly it's middle-aged folk, and sometimes even old people. The middle-aged are generally too busy to talk about sex, and the old people sometimes talk about it, but it's funny to listen to them.
I would imagine that some young guys, let's say less than 30 years old, would be quite into sex as a source of self-esteem, largely because they have no other way to feel good about themselves. Young people are often deprived of a place in society, and this homelessness is a means of controlling them. The old folk are very much afraid of the young.
Why? It's become quite an indifferent to me. If you visited a foreign planet, where the inhabitants, say, tapped their heads every now and again, you'd just shrug your shoulders and pass on. The only reason why something can be disturbing to you is if you have an interest in it.
I would imagine that some young guys, let's say less than 30 years old, would be quite into sex as a source of self-esteem, largely because they have no other way to feel good about themselves. Young people are often deprived of a place in society, and this homelessness is a means of controlling them.
Oh yeah, hot people who get laid are like hobos socially. :-}
I always wanted to be a sanitation officer, thanks!
True story. I actually asked for an application to be a sanitation officer when I was 10 years old. I waived at the garbage truck often whenever passing by also.
BuxtebuddhaJanuary 22, 2018 at 02:54#1460070 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface There was a contestant on Jeopardy the other night that said she was a fire lookout. I'm not exactly sure why, but after looking up more about the occupation, it seems like a pretty cool job.
Because society is sex-saturated, from which it is impossible to escape. Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." When you find something more interesting than sex, being bombarded by concupiscence can be exasperating.
Physiologically, and psychologically sex is considered a want, not a need.
Maybe both? The desire for orgasm seems to be prompted by bodily need; it is a need we want to satisfy. If we can't or don't (for whatever reason) of course we will not drop dead, usually, anyway. But the desire returns, and always seems physically prompted.
Sometimes we "want" warmth, food, and drink, but it isn't just an aesthetic choice: We want these things because our bodies have registered that they are cold, hungry, and dehydrated. A real need underlies our want. We can delay, but eventually we will drop dead if we don't satisfy these needs/wants.
I want a really nice pair of shoes. I don't need a nice pair. There is no physical need prompting a desire for very expensive cordovan leather shoes. It's strictly aesthetics. (I'll do without, of course.)
Oh yeah, hot people who get laid are like hobos socially. :-}
You think someone who can get laid has social skills? Give me a break. That's what silly 14-15 year olds think. That's not what qualifies as social skills. Social skills are what you need to get important stuff done in the world - start a business, run for political office, be a successful lawyer or doctor, etc.
So if all you can do is get laid, congratulations, you're almost at the bottom of the pyramid now. As I said, young people are kept at the bottom of the pyramid socially. That means it's hard to play important social roles in your community as a young person - you are actually prevented from helping.
Agustino, I think dear Thorongil was talking largely about society, not about what you do in your personal space.
So-called society is actually formed of multiple societies. We could live in the same city, and yet live in different societies. If I am, for example a Mormon, I could live very differently from you, an atheist, even if we're next-door neighbours (and please don't edit out that middle "m" when you quote me, I know what kind of stuff you can be up to). That's what I tried to illustrate by my personal example.
When you find something more interesting than sex, being bombarded by concupiscence can be exasperating.
Why? And how is that different from being bombarded by, for example, celebrity gossip of a non-sexual nature? Why do you find the one more exasperating than the other?
Well, yes. Not everyone is such a Stoic as you say. It's impossible not to be moved by the rest of people while living in a society.
Yeah, but I think there is some self-deception there. You might abhor some kinds of sex, but I doubt you abhor all kinds of sex - you are a biological animal, so the sex drive is bound to play a psychological role for you. So you should be honest if that's the case - you don't abhor all kinds of sex.
And then it becomes a question of whether the kind of sex you accept is available or not, given both your position in society and your other goals. If it's not available, and you understand why, then it becomes an indifferent for you. Either you're not married, or you don't have time for a meaningful relationship, or the way/place you were brought up in didn't allow you to become as socially integrated as others, etc. etc.
So, this probably has been covered somewhere but I've been offline for 4 days (bliss!). Why are the Democrats so stupid as to risk being blamed for a shutdown when they are perfectly poised to get a majority in both houses as long as Trump continues to self-destruct?
lol, the economy is doing great, that's virtually the only thing Americans care about. So long as the economy is going great, nothing will trouble Trump.
lol, the economy is doing great, that's virtually the only thing Americans care about. So long as the economy is going great, nothing will trouble Trump.
Be that as it may, that isn't an answer to my question at all.
I can say a lot about why the economy is recovering but that's besides the discussion I want to have. I do suggest you look into when the recovery started. I'll wait for you to give your first compliment to Obama when you're done.
I can say a lot about why the economy is recovering but that's besides the discussion I want to have. I do suggest you look into when the recovery started. I'll wait for you to give your first compliment to Obama when you're done.
Yeah, it did start with Obama, but it only accelerated with Trump, since investors can finally bank on tax cuts to bring the money back and increase investments.
Yeah, it did start with Obama, but it only accelerated with Trump, since investors can finally bank on tax cuts to bring the money back and increase investments.
I'm not going to debate this but would suggest you look into the various market (price) reactions right after his election. That really says it all what investors expected from a Trump presidency.
I'm still waiting on an answer to my original question though!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2018 at 12:56#1461020 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Sad to see a gentle soul like you seems to be unable to muster a fair and balanced view of a Democratic president. Especially considering your views on grace and gentleman like behaviour I am at a loss why you even ever voted for Trump.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2018 at 13:07#1461050 likes
So, this probably has been covered somewhere but I've been offline for 4 days (bliss!). Why are the Democrats so stupid as to risk being blamed for a shutdown when they are perfectly poised to get a majority in both houses as long as Trump continues to self-destruct?
In all seriousness, Trump is not self-destructing yet but the week is still fresh.
The Democrats have become the party of resistance and will say no until Trumps time is up. From a very rudimentary standpoint they have staked their victory on granting the DACA kids citizenship or a path there to, in exchange for their agreeing to the new budget for the citizens they have been elected to represent. If you take the emotion out of it, you will see the Democrats putting the USA citizens needs, our military families daily meals on the tables where one parent is serving overseas, second to what are currently considered non citizens who will still receive any state awarded assistance such as food, medical and schooling.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff So why are they doing it nonetheless? I'm pretty sure the above sentiment on putting the rights of a few immigrants above that of US citizens is something shared across the party divide. That's why I don't understand the Democratic stance on this. It appears short-sighted or I'm missing something.
We are a self employed, single breadwinner family who specializes in small business IT. Why on earth would I have ever voted for anyone else running?
And before you go all "Especially considering your views on grace and gentleman like behavior" on me, let me give you a little idea to chew on for a moment. When President Clinton was first accused of sexual harassment and rape, his faithful wife Hillary said that the accusations were a "Right wing conspiracy" to take down her husband and there was absolutely NO truth to them, even though she knew there was. Now fast forward to Fall of 2017 when the Harvey Weinstein accounts of abuse began to surface. Do you really think that Hillary, the first female president of the USA would have stepped up and apologized to those who accused her husband Billy and took up the cause end to this abuse?
And before you go all "Especially considering your views on grace and gentleman like behavior" on me, let me give you a little idea to chew on for a moment. When President Clinton was first accused of sexual harassment and rape, his faithful wife Hillary said that the accusations were a "Right wing conspiracy" to take down her husband and there was absolutely NO truth to them, even though she knew there was. Now fast forward to Fall of 2017 when the Harvey Weinstein accounts of abuse began to surface. Do you really think that Hillary, the first female president of the USA would have stepped up and apologized to those who accused her husband Billy and took up the cause end to this abuse?
I didn't say you should've voted or Hillary to begin with. You can abstain by voting blank, which is a clear condemnation of both parties. As to "what ifs", they aren't very useful. All I know is Trump talked shit about women, Mexicans and a boat load of others, called political opponents all sorts of names, invited the Russians to meddle in the US elections etc. etc. before he got elected. There was a lot he did that totally disqualified him to you if you had been prepared to apply your standards to him as well. But you didn't for obvious reasons as your first paragraph makes clear. Don't feed me all these high-and-mighty, grace and gentleman and principles as if they matter to you. If they did, you wouldn't have voted for Trump. The Tiff I knew would be disgusted with him well before his election.
Obama is and was in every way a better man than Trump.
Reply to Posty McPostface Thanks! Well, in that case, it explains why the Democrats are doing it. They probably think they can get away with it as well.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2018 at 13:33#1461130 likes
So why are they doing it nonetheless? I'm pretty sure the above sentiment on putting the rights of a few immigrants above that of US citizens is something shared across the party divide. That's why I don't understand the Democratic stance on this. It appears short-sighted or I'm missing something.
This is a harder question to answer. Democrats are choosing this 'hill to die on' because the DACA cause is a fair cause and one I happen to agree with. However after living in a border state with Mexico, I can understand why someone from New York would think a "Wall" would work to keep the nations separated because that is how it is in the city, my hometown of Chicago included. After moving to the desert I understand the challenge of securing our southern border and the economics of that security succeeding or not. What seems like a 'few immigrants' now will continue to flow until there is some form of a 'port of entry' so Trump is correct in that if we do legalize the DACA kids now without a secure border, we will only be left to face this dilemma again.
Don't feed me all these high-and-mighty, grace and gentleman and principles as if they matter to you. If they did, you wouldn't have voted for Trump. The Tiff I knew would be disgusted with him well before his election.
:-O Who said I wasn't disgusted with his behavior? However, you cannot base your choice on whom to vote for on one quality or fault,for no one man is perfect. And let it be a comfort to you, that I am held accountable for voting for Trump because my youngest Indian wants to debate it daily when he is home from college.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 22, 2018 at 13:40#1461160 likes
Reply to Cavacava Michael deleted it as it wasn't fleshed out enough. I know @Banno's style is sparse but we have to try to be consistent with regard to expectations of OPs.
Why? And how is that different from being bombarded by, for example, celebrity gossip of a non-sexual nature? Why do you find the one more exasperating than the other?
Because the former is more ubiquitous than the latter.
That's why I don't understand the Democratic stance on this. It appears short-sighted or I'm missing something.
I'd guess the Democrats are trying to solidify their current and future base. The voter base in the US is becoming less and less white every year because of the baby-boomers expiring, low birthrates among white couples, and higher birthrates among immigrant couples. So looking to the long term this might be a good idea.
If you take the emotion out of it, you will see the Democrats putting the USA citizens needs, our military families daily meals on the tables where one parent is serving overseas, second to what are currently considered non citizens who will still receive any state awarded assistance such as food, medical and schooling.
Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., proposed fast-tracking a bill on the Senate floor after a midnight budget deadline Friday that would have ensured paychecks continued. But the move was opposed by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., leaving the military and hundreds of thousands of civilian workers hanging.
Blame McConnell, not the Democrats.
Also, the shutdown didn't even need to happen. The Republicans could have just carried on with DACA. So perhaps it should be reframed as "the Republicans are putting their desire to kick people out of the country over the needs of US citizens".
Reply to Agustino You keep confusing things. Sex and the sexual impulse is not going to be eradicated, but I think its ubiquity in society can be lessened.
Reply to Thorongil Depends what you mean by ubiquity.
One thing is for sure repression does not work.
Agusty's problem is always the same. He thinks God has made us ill with sexual desire, and commanded us to be well by ignoring telling us to suppress it.
He is in denial about human nature. This is a constant problem for the religiously minded.
The Dems even offered Trump funding for his silly wall but his anti-immigrant adviser Stephen Miller asked for an exorbitant amount that Trump hadn't even wanted. It's a clown show. They don't even know what they're negotiating. (Even Lindsey Graham is getting annoyed with his own side).
Damn. :’( a former colleague and friend of mine died in her thirties. Brilliant pianist. A daughter of 2. I feel so sad... She helped me pick my grand piano, which were the best of times when we shared everything. We both got a dose of heartache back then and managed to cheer each other up everyday without getting into rebound complications. Here's to the little things in life that stay with us forever.
Reply to Benkei Nothing worse than losing a friend and so young. Really sorry for your loss and I hope you continue to share those memories and it is those little things that make up this weird, beautiful, broken and amazing thing called life.
Damn. :’( a former colleague and friend of mine died in her thirties. Brilliant pianist. A daughter of 2. I feel so sad... She helped me pick my grand piano, which were the best of times when we shared everything. We both got a dose of heartache back then and managed to cheer each other up everyday without getting into rebound complications
My dear friend, I am so sorry to hear the news of you losing a good friend, so young as it seems like we have our whole lives ahead of us, at any age. The delicacy of life we hold in our hearts, should always be handled with two hands, it is that fragile. My heart aches for yours but I know that a silver lining you will find when your fingers touch the keys.
Here's to the little things in life that stay with us forever
Never stop living the love out of life~ (L)
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 23, 2018 at 12:28#1464340 likes
I am going to put this here and not on the Beautiful Things thread to be kind to Baden and not make him move it somewhere else. :P @Bitter Crank Quoting Bitter Crank
Let's not go overboard, here.
Instead of explaining to you the theory my Mom ingrained in me in killing my enemy with kindness, I shall instead turn my sights on the true beauty of YOU!
I happen to think that you are a VERY attractive man, both in physical features and the wit of the mind. If I ever run into you, you are going to have to keep reminding me that while you appreciate the beauty of the female form and mind, it is not your absolute ideal in a partner. "Just think of me like a Priest Tiff" might work but even then there is a primal desire to change the ultimate part of a man. Is that a wicked thought or a normal one? Or one that is rarely expressed?
I've tried to Thank him for what he does around here and to get him to take a compliment, in addition to all of his Awesomeness the kid turns out to be humble too.
I don't think luscious leg pictures are going to solve the problem, Tiff.
Maybe not but just as a side note? I love the word luscious. In fact an author I edited a book for believed in the power of words that start with "L" because they are usually sensuous in nature. Odd thing for him to notice as he was non sexual, or a-sexual but man could he find the satire in life. Such a shame he left this world too soon but his legacy lives on in folks like me that he touched but never met.
Sex and the sexual impulse is not going to be eradicated, but I think its ubiquity in society can be lessened.
Would you say it would be a problem if married couples had sex three times a day, every day, without compromising any of the other vital functions they have to do (work, help their communities, study, educate children, etc.)?
We live in an age when true education is virtually non-existent, even in Universities - in fact, I might say that especially in Universities it is absent. So why would one wonder that most people are controlled by their sexual impulse, when even the philosophers of today (read shapers of culture) glorify it?
The extent to which legal punishments could be helpful varies, but the very fact that one even thinks of resorting to putting sexual behaviour into the law is a sign of a decadent age. As Plato wrote in The Republic:
Socrates: Then there are the rules about hairstyle, clothing, footwear, and in general the way one presents oneself, and so on and so forth. Do you agree? Glaucon: Yes. Socrates:But in my opinion, only an idiot would legislate on these matters. I don't think these rules come into being, and I don't think they would remain in force either, through being formulated and written down.
So these are matters of education - people must be so educated that the wrong sexual way to behave does not even cross the mind anymore. This is best done in childhood, in schools and within the family. In the absence of this, the person is, for the most part, left to Fortune's whims. If they are like me, failure in a relationship may get them to re-evaluate their habits, and provided they have access to the right intellectual resources and have developed the intellectual capacity to understand, they may be able to extricate themselves from their predicament. But otherwise, they are cursed to follow their existent habits or those of the friends they already have. One might add that one always goes to one's friends for advice first, and to books only after.
The state of society is the fault of the philosophers, many of whom have stopped doing philosophy, and others which have retreated into their own caves, selfishly enjoying their own enlightenment for a little while. Many of the philosophers have failed to develop ways to influence their fellow citizens since many of them seem to lack social skills or otherwise have an unwillingness to engage or "be contaminated" by contact with the unphilosophical masses.
The only thing stupider than stupid people having sex is obsessing over stupid people having sex.
You should worry about stupid people, cause you have to live with them man... If you're not concerned about the education of your fellow citizens, then you will soon find out that your society has become stupid (creating problems for everyone), and now you can only change it with much greater difficulty.
The idea that one can be isolated from the social context in which they live by wealth, status, or the like is bogus. If you're a genius in a society of retards, you're screwed, and not just because of the loneliness you'll experience, but also because you won't be able to do anything with your genius. If you're a rich man in a poor society, you're again screwed - and not just because you'll be lonely and with no friends, but because your very servants will be exploiting you - you will not even find good servants. So it's absolutely silly to think that a problem in society or for others isn't your problem - it absolutely is your problem.
You should worry about stupid people, cause you have to live with them man... If you're not concerned about the education of your fellow citizens, then you will soon find out that your society has become stupid (creating problems for everyone), and now you can only change it with much greater difficulty.
We're not talking about educating the populace. We're talking about sex. To the extent promiscuous sex translates into people having children they cannot afford and that results in responsible people having to take responsibility for that, I'd be in favor of advocating responsible use of contraception. Of course, this isn't a sex problem, but an irresponsibility problem, and I'm generally against irresponsibility in all it's forms, whether it be sexual, economic, career, education, or whatever. But, to the extent folks out there are having sex however and whenever they want to, I don't care as long as they are able to deal with the consequences of their decisions. So, if I have a couple of children out of wedlock just because, you have no room to complain as long as it doesn't affect you.
But to your point, sure, I'd rather have 100 really smart children borne out of wedlock than 100 morons in intact families.
The idea that one can be isolated from the social context in which they live by wealth, status, or the like is bogus. If you're a genius in a society of retards, you're screwed, and not just because of the loneliness you'll experience, but also because you won't be able to do anything with your genius.
This is a strawman. I never argued that each man is an island, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.
Of course, this isn't a sex problem, but an irresponsibility problem, and I'm generally against irresponsibility in all it's forms, whether it be sexual, economic, career, education, or whatever.
I disagree with you because these things are all tied together. Someone who is lustful, and approaches sex in that manner, cannot be responsible in all circumstance, that's what I would claim. I have no doubt that such a person can have a sort of "pragmatic" responsibility, but there will be situations and contexts when he (or she) cannot adequately foresee the consequences, so then his/her judgement will fail. Whereas someone who has developed the habits of virtue acts in a just manner regardless of circumstance.
I am a virtue ethicist, so to me, one's character has to be right to prevent immorality and irresponsibility. We cannot just ignore one's character and think they will just make the right choice in the specific circumstances they face because they won't. You must cultivate certain habits, and one such habit would be control over lust.
But, to the extent folks out there are having sex however and whenever they want to, I don't care as long as they are able to deal with the consequences of their decisions.
Would you agree that certain actions will cement certain habits, and certain habits become part of our character? If someone has a one night stand every day, will this not become a habit for him? And if it becomes a habit for him, won't his thinking, and his attitudes, start, to a certain extent or another to revolve around this way of acting? Such a person may be affected in such a way that they won't make a good mother or father, or wife/husband in the future.
So, if I have a couple of children out of wedlock just because, you have no room to complain as long as it doesn't affect you.
I have no legal room to complain (and that is probably right), but I do have room to complain socially and in terms of trying to educate you to do better. For example, having children out of wedlock may be problematic - maybe it makes your wife jealous, maybe those children have a crazy mother who will want to raise them herself, maybe those children will come to split the inheritance with your other sons against your will, maybe those children will develop mental health issues, maybe they'll have less financial resources that your other sons, and so will feel envy etc. etc. - these are social problems, that are my concern, and everyone else's. Your actions have repercussions that affect all of us, and that includes what you do with your sex life. So this may not be relevant when it comes to deciding the law of the country, but it's definitely a relevant problem when it comes to education - pretty much any social activity, and sex is social, should be part of this education.
This is a strawman. I never argued that each man is an island, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.
Yeah, that comment isn't addressed to you in particular, it was just some thoughts I had surrounding these (and similar) issues. I did not quote you or reply to you in that post.
Would you agree that certain actions will cement certain habits, and certain habits become part of our character? If someone has a one night stand every day, will this not become a habit for him? And if it becomes a habit for him, won't his thinking, and his attitudes, start, to a certain extent or another to revolve around this way of acting? Such a person may be affected in such a way that they won't make a good mother or father, or wife/husband in the future.
Reply to Hanover In relation to the above, I will say that this is much like how a government official becomes corrupt. First it's a little "yes", said for a tiny sum, that he says very reluctantly - but with each successive "yes", it gets easier and easier, and the sums get bigger and bigger. Maybe at first, there was no damage done (or the damage was insignificant), but sooner or later, as he gets more adventurous, there will be damage. In that sense, a vice is just a negative and self-destructive habit that perpetuates itself.
Haha. Just doing my job and have people hate me for doing it sounds so much fun. No but really. I want to go after the twats that want their cake and eat it too.
Such a person may be affected in such a way that they won't make a good mother or father, or wife/husband in the future.
Whether there's an underlying failure in someone's personality that makes it difficult for them to be in long term monogamous relationships and it reveals itself with promiscuity is a possibility. On the other hand, there are many very good parents that simply make very bad romantic partners and many very good romantic partners who make terrible parents. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that promiscuity while in a supposedly monogamous relationship is acceptable, but that has less to do with sexual mores than it does honesty.Quoting Agustino
For example, having children out of wedlock may be problematic - maybe it makes your wife jealous, maybe those children have a crazy mother who will want to raise them herself, maybe those children will come to split the inheritance with your other sons against your will, maybe those children will develop mental health issues, maybe they'll have less financial resources that your other sons, and so will feel envy etc. etc. - these are social problems, that are my concern, and everyone else's.
Again, I've not suggested having children with another woman while supposedly being committed to your wife. Crazy moms and mental health issues arise within the family unit as well (can I get an Amen), and I'm not sure why you think they're more likely to occur in out of wedlock situations.
Whether there's an underlying failure in someone's personality that makes it difficult for them to be in long term monogamous relationships and it reveals itself with promiscuity is a possibility.
Do you reckon it's possible to separate one's personality completely from one's actions? I think the two mutually shape each other, do you disagree with that?
On the other hand, there are many very good parents that simply make very bad romantic partners and many very good romantic partners who make terrible parents.
That underlies a different presupposition you have. Personally, I subscribe to the Platonic/Aristotelian account of virtue ethics, where there is such a thing as the unity of the virtues - meaning that a truly virtuous person cannot be a good romantic partner and a terrible parent. If that's the case, then he is not a virtuous person. In other words, what it takes to be a good romantic partner is related (though not identical) to what it takes to be a good parent. So at the very least, if someone is a good romantic partner, they're more likely to be a good parent.
Crazy moms and mental health issues arise within the family unit as well (can I get an Amen), and I'm not sure why you think they're more likely to occur in out of wedlock situations.
From my experience, it's just based on the likely personalities you encounter. From the POV of a man, talking only about women who are promiscuous, I noticed they are more likely to be subversive of the unity that is required to form a couple or a family, and will generally have different goals in life. That is also what I meant by unity of the virtues - a kind of person who is interested in such things, has differences that run through their entire life, not just the sexual aspect.
That underlies a different presupposition you have. Personally, I subscribe to the Platonic/Aristotelian account of virtue ethics, where there is such a thing as the unity of the virtues - meaning that a truly virtuous person cannot be a good romantic partner and a terrible parent. If that's the case, then he is not a virtuous person. In other words, what it takes to be a good romantic partner is related (though not identical) to what it takes to be a good parent. So at the very least, if someone is a good romantic partner, they're more likely to be a good parent.
You can't define reality based upon ancient Greek principles, but you actually have to look at reality first and then see if your principles describe reality. That is, you do have really bad romantic partners who make really good parents. That I can't get along with the missus doesn't mean I can't raise healthy, happy kids. That me and the missus get along famously doesn't mean that I can't raise a bunch of hellions. So, if your philosophical presuppositions state that all great spouses make great parents, your presupposition is wrong. Quoting Agustino
So at the very least, if someone is a good romantic partner, they're more likely to be a good parent.
Is this now a more likely than not, 51% chance thing, or is your theory that they must go hand in hand.Quoting Agustino
From my experience, it's just based on the likely personalities you encounter. From the POV of a man, talking only about women who are promiscuous, I noticed they are more likely to be subversive of the unity that is required to form a couple or a family, and will generally have different goals in life. That is also what I meant by unity of the virtues - a kind of person who is interested in such things, has differences that run through their entire life, not just the sexual aspect.
Women are promiscuous for all the varied reasons that men are. I guess some are evil, subversive creatures, looking to undermine happiness and create jealousy, while others are lacking self-esteem, are insecure, and who may be looking for real love in their terribly inept way. I'd assume there are thousands of points in between with all sorts of personality profiles.
I want to go after the twats that want their cake and eat it too.
The idea of "going after" someone is silly. As if that someone didn't thrive as part of a particular social structure in the first place. No politician or entrepreneur exists alone, without having the support of key members from within a power structure. Most entrepreneurs aren't very smart, they're pretty much just regular people, who have, over time, built out a support network surrounding whatever trade they're in.
So what you should be doing instead is tackle the underlying problem, which is one of education. People are so educated that, for example, they don't have a problem if they receive $10 million dollars to give whatever entrepreneur a state contract worth 10x as much. Policeman doesn't have a problem if he receives a $100 dollar bribe. The man in the street has no problem giving some money so they let him off whatever petty thing he did. So the problem is a cultural one, and starts from the very bottom and goes to the very top.
Reply to Michael I took a look at that video, and it is something I might be able to work with. What I noticed more than their cheeks was their British dental work. What's up with that? Do you guys drink well water?
. Policeman doesn't have a problem if he receives a $100 dollar bribe. The man in the street has no problem giving some money so they let him off whatever petty thing he did. So the problem is a cultural one, and starts from the very bottom and goes to the very top.
Where I live, if you offer a cop a bribe, you just turned a speeding ticket into a felony. In fact, it'd be so ridiculous, he might not even take you seriously.
Reply to Michael Should you make it to Atlanta one day, over a few beers I can tell you one hell of a story about a Romanian woman I knew. It's actually worth the plane ticket just to come over here and hear it. To make up for the flight, I'll buy the first round.
Agustino's an orthodox prude;
An upright and moral young dude.
His sex life was too oft prunéd.
So him joy of life thus eluded.
For happy men are regularly screwéd.
One of Garrison Keillor's (apparently numerous) sins that got him fired was writing a limerick on the white board of his book store next to Macalester College:
Hilgenberg, who now lives in northern California, said Keillor wrote a sexually suggestive limerick on a whiteboard behind the cash register. In the five lines, photos of which Hilgenberg shared with MPR News, Keillor wrote about another young female employee, whose physique he found arousing. Hilgenberg said she is certain that her co-worker was the subject of the poem.
A beauty who goes to Macalester —
O, her face, her limbs, her ballast, her
Tiny blue kilt
And the way she is built
Could make a petrified phallus stir.
Hilgenberg said she found the verse offensive and demeaning, but felt powerless to do anything about it.
"I'm pretty sure I didn't say anything other than 'Oh my gosh!'" Hilgenberg said. "I don't even really remember my reaction. I was just in shock. I was like, 'That is so wildly inappropriate' in my mind. But I didn't say anything, which I still regret to this day."
Calm down, dear. You should be so lucky to have such a limerick dedicated to you.
Where I live, if you offer a cop a bribe, you just turned a speeding ticket into a felony. In fact, it'd be so ridiculous, he might not even take you seriously.
Yeah, that probably doesn't happen as often in the more developed countries, where the morality of the people is usually also one of the reasons why they are more developed in the first place, in my opinion.
Although, you have the wrong idea if you think that you'd offer it in such a way that you could be accused of a felony in case of refusal.
StreetlightJanuary 24, 2018 at 09:31#1467620 likes
Calm down, dear. You should be so lucky to have such a limerick dedicated to you.
Nah fuck that guy. Writing 'you make my dick hard' in the workplace in public, no matter how poetically couched, is about as straightforward a case for dismissal in any circumstance.
You can't define reality based upon ancient Greek principles, but you actually have to look at reality first and then see if your principles describe reality.
Is this now a more likely than not, 51% chance thing, or is your theory that they must go hand in hand.
I didn't say they must, in all cases, go hand in hand. Rather the point is that the virtues are mutually supporting. This becomes clear if we take extreme cases. Someone who completely lacks empathy and social skills cannot make either a good parent or a good lover. Whereas if someone already has empathy, then, for example, they can develop social skills much more easily. If someone is a good lover, it is easier for them to be a good parent than for someone who isn't.
While the virtues somewhat overlap and are mutually supporting, it doesn't mean that someone who has developed, say, compassion, is also able to restrain their lust. But having developed compassion certainly helps since one can perceive the negative effects of lust on themselves and others more easily. So by the same train of reasoning, it is absolutely possible for someone to be a good lover (having developed whatever characteristics are necessary) and fail to be a good parent (having failed to develop one or more characteristics that aren't important in a lover but are important in a parent).
So yes, someone is more likely (and that doesn't mean 51%, since one lacking characteristic X could be 10% likely to develop characteristic Y, while someone having characteristic X could be 20% likely to develop characteristic Y). So "more likely" is a relative thing. The virtues do have a tendency to go hand-in-hand (because there are similarities and overlaps between them), as I said, but this isn't an absolutely necessary rule when applied to individual cases.
I guess some are evil, subversive creatures, looking to undermine happiness and create jealousy, while others are lacking self-esteem, are insecure, and who may be looking for real love in their terribly inept way. I'd assume there are thousands of points in between with all sorts of personality profiles.
I really didn't mean that they would be consciously malicious or anything of that sort when I said they're more likely to be subversive. The reason I said that is simply because they usually have goals which are in conflict with what it takes to form a long-term, stable couple, relationship, and family.
Quick example, I remember someone here (don't remember exactly who, maybe it was Akanthinos?) is dating a stripper. They mentioned that she doesn't want to get married or ever have children. She just has different goals, and in that sense she is subversive. And she has different goals by nature, it's unlikely that you'd convince her to switch her goals and priorities around. And the fact that she has such goals is indeed related to her career, her sex life, and everything else in her life. These different aspects all strive to form a whole - it is very unlikely that you'll find a super promiscuous woman who wants to have a stable family, get married, and have children.
Nah fuck that guy. Writing 'you make my dick hard' in the workplace in public, no matter how poetically couched, is about as straightforward a case for dismissal in any circumstance.
So what do we do if the woman jumps on you in the workplace and starts kissing you? Also straightforward dismissal?
StreetlightJanuary 24, 2018 at 09:57#1467650 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 24, 2018 at 11:44#1467750 likes
Name this song without using assistance from the Internet:
"If my words did glow, with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung
Would you hear my voice come through the music
Would you hold it near, as it were your own?"
Reply to Michael The Romanian woman I knew thought the Moldavians were unsophisticated. I'll tell you more about it all once you make it over here. If you need a place to stay, you can sleep in my yard.
StreetlightJanuary 24, 2018 at 15:54#1468020 likes
Current first world problem: I have what is essentially an 800 page textbook on evolution* that I really want to read, but also don't, because reading it will take me so long that it'll mean that I'll have to put off reading several other books in its place. This will make me sad. On the other hand, I just took a dip into the first chapter and it is excellent. But I'm also traveling for three weeks next month, which means if I start reading it I'm going to have to lug this monster around with me, which, on the one hand will mean I won't have to bring my customary 3/4 books with me while traveling, but on the other hand, this thing is heavy as brick and is not very travel friendly. But, if I don't bring it, it will also disrupt my reading trajectory, which this fits perfectly into, and my sense of following every book up with something that compliments it will be broken, and this will also make me sad.
Life is hard yo.
*Mary Jane West-Eberhard - Developmental Plasticity and Evolution
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2018 at 16:07#1468050 likes
Reply to StreetlightX Books are mere makings, as Ursula LeGuin said. She died yesterday. Anyway, you could just rip out a hunk of the book and take that much with you, then you wouldn't have to carry the whole thing around. Ripping the book into pieces will also make it easier to recycle.
Reply to TimeLine never heard of it. I have a sci-fi trilogy from Cixin Liu waiting for me. 500 pages to go in the malazan book.
I only read fantasy and sci-fi. Life is too serious already for me not to want to escape it when reading.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 25, 2018 at 11:13#1469300 likes
@unenlightened@Hanover
You who choose to lead must follow, but if you fall you fall alone
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
(L)
Very spiritual in nature~
Reply to Benkei It is a teen series about a skeleton detective, great writing and hilarious. I would love to write a teen novel, but I need to read all the books in my literacy program that the kids will be reading. One of them was a book by Emily Rodda Rowan of Rin that I read when really young (I am talking maybe around 9-10 years old, in primary school) but I could never remember the name or title of the book. It had a huge impact on me so I totally flipped when I was reading it because I found it again.
Today, I was thinking of Hans who appears to no longer hold any interest in me, moving on to more worthwhile discussions about Moldova or whatever matterless things like that. Sod him, the bastard!
I call this 'My New Pair Of Jeans Is Better Then A Man' from my I Don't Give A Shit About The Australian Open Collection.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 25, 2018 at 12:39#1469360 likes
@jamalrob
We are approaching the close of month three of my Mother In Law living with us, in her van down by the river. When are you sending for her so I can hold my breath until she leaves? I am losing all patience and my grace is on it's last little leg....please man, have a heart
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Sorry Tiff, I'm facing the prospect of getting a mother-in-law of my very own, and I'm thinking one is enough.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 25, 2018 at 12:47#1469380 likes
Reply to jamalrob :-O Oh No! Say it isn't so!
Oh, no, no, I am NOT going to be the last one holding this hot potato.
I am outta here...moving somewhere colder where older people don't want to go. 8-)
@StreetlightX having a Wall-E moment right now. I am at my park as usual reading and there are a bunch of young kids all standing around together playing pokemon, looking down into their phones and not communicating with one another or even looking at each other. Then you have a bunch of elderly men playing Bocce, laughing, joking, chatting and clearly connecting.
Playing games is great if the purpose is to connect with the people around you, right?
We are approaching the close of month three of my Mother In Law living with us
Sell up, pack up, leave. End of problem.
StreetlightJanuary 26, 2018 at 02:23#1470270 likes
Reply to TimeLine I'm just surprised people are still playing Pokemon go - it gets old so fast! On the other hand, everyone should know how to play Bocce - that's way more fun that it looks, esp. a few drinks in lol.
Reply to StreetlightX It's even fun watching these elderly Maltese falcons, unlike those clusters of young adults huddled together like something out of I Am Legend :D
MTV in Canada had a good sober driving advert: 3 guys are in parked car. Guy A passes the bong to the guy in back saying, "Wow, this is really good stuff". The two guys in front look at each other and lean toward the center and kiss deeply, then part. The guy in back says, "Aren't you two guys brothers?"
Reply to StreetlightX don't know either game. I have a group of friends I play a lot of different board games with, it's fun and we talk but it's not the same as connecting. In fact, I feel we're drifting apart despite weekly game sessions.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 26, 2018 at 14:50#1470940 likes
have a group of friends I play a lot of different board games with, it's fun and we talk but it's not the same as connecting. In fact, I feel we're drifting apart despite weekly game sessions.
Start betting on card games, competition gets stiff when people have money at stake. ;)
Reply to TimeLineI do so admire the skinny jean. Here are my sweet form fitting jeans with my oh so hipster boots. This is from my "Hanover - Why You So Gorgeous?" collection, Limited Elite Wonderballs Super Classy Line (available only in Milan, Paris, and the over the top northen ATL burbs).
Reply to Hanover Extrapolating from your skinny thighs that you probably take a size 31-32 waist.
You definitely need an upgrade in shoe & boots taste. Did you get those at Payless or Kmart?
Here, get a boot like this from Allen Edmond -- made in Wisconsin from leather tanned in Chicago -- Tiff will appreciate that. This is the Normandy. $350 -- you're a lawyer, you need a decent boot to stomp all over the opposition. When it wears out, Allen Edmond will rebuild the boot for you.
Reply to Bitter Crank Your extrapolation of my waist size is eerily correct, as is your ability to determine my store preferences, although, to be fair, you are aware of my ethnic background, so you would know of my spending habits.
Here are my actual boots, having purchased them online at a real military surplus site at the bargain price of $25. I know they're real as they have the name and scent of the marine noted in the interior of the boot. These are from the "G.I. Hanover" line.
Tiff will appreciate that. This is the Normandy. $350 --
You have me nailed BC! The thing I like most about your choice in boot over Hanovers' wanna be boot is that your choice can handle a horse putting it's hove on your toes and they are untouched. Where in Hanovers' boot.. well....the toe would get all swollen and blood blisters under the nail which he will eventually lose.....oh wait we can just scroll back and see what his toe will look like. :-O
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 27, 2018 at 13:31#1473340 likes
Reply to AgustinoReply to ArguingWAristotleTiff That I am rough around the edges is endearing to the ladies, especially TimeLine. Great, now Baden's going to be jelly. Why'd I say anything!
A true story. Last night, I had a late night at the chess club (no such thing as a backgammon club bitches) and came home to my dogs being inside too long. I put them in their pen and went to sleep (put on my long sleeping hat with the fluffy ball on top - soooo cute omg, but I digress) and awoke to the potent smell of dog shit. What happened see is that one of them (I'm guessing the subversive Fred Barkowitz) shat surreptiously the night before and my sleepy head didn't notice it until it fully blossomed over night. While the smell could kill a magpie serenading princess all the way in Australia, I could not locate the exact pile right away. I searched diligently to no avail, but, just when all seemed lost, I kicked that cold mushy goodness with my toe. Having located it, I could only then clean and defumigate the Hanover Estate on Avon (as in it was built on an annoying lipstick selling Avon lady).
This anecdote finally answers the pre-Socratic question that has plagued Western civilization for ages: "When is stepping in dog shit a good thing."
You have me nailed BC! The thing I like most about your choice in boot over Hanovers' wanna be boot is that your choice can handle a horse putting it's hove on your toes and they are untouched.
Maybe that boot could withstand actual labor, but it's too expensive and dressy to subject it to that. That's a metro dress boot. Real boot wearing workers shop at Wal-Mart. The other day I was helping a lady with her gutters and a construction guy was also helping. He saw my boots and asked if I did construction. I told him no, I just bullshit on the internet all day. Had I been wearing those $350 boots, he'd have thought I was an uptight suburban lawyer. Ridiculous.
Guys tell the truth. Would these boots be too hip? I don't want conservative, but this might be too big a step all at once. So you know, I do have the thighs to pull this off.
1) Is Stormy Daniels just trying to ride the event to increase her popularity and possibly increase her financial gain by being silent when questioned on those matters by the reporter in order on purpose to generate controversy, even though she did nothing with Trump?
or
2) Is Stormy Daniels really under a non-disclosure agreement with Trump?
And if (2), why doesn't one of Trump's rich opponents offer more money and protection to her in exchange for breaking her silence - or would doing that be illegal?
Reply to Agustino So, what is surprising about Donald Trump either having or attempting to have sex with Stormy Daniels? What is surprising is that the hush money ($130,000) seems remarkably skimpy. Steve Wynn supposedly paid $7,000,000 to a nail salon employee to keep her quiet. Good heavens -- what did they do together that seven million dollars is reasonable hush money? One is intrigued.
Was this an unusual lapse for Donald? Don't know. Maybe he is all talk, and this was a rare actual incident? Don't know. Illegal to bribe somebody to break a contract? Probably. Is it done? Probably. How often? Don't know.
Generally, I don't think sexual behavior is terribly important when it comes to judging political performance. There are numerous grounds to consider Donald Trump a poor political performer, but sexual behavior doesn't figure into my calculations. I haven't held it against other presidents (like Bill Clinton) and I wouldn't hold it against Donald Trump.
What is the case is that presidents (and other public servants) should be judged on the basis of their performance of the office. I want them to deliver excellent service to the public in their positions. They may be unfaithful to their wives or husbands, screw up their marriages, may engage in sex acts that the public might not approve, and so on. All their extra-curricular activities are just that -- extra curricular and not part of the course.
Trump was recorded boasting about grabbing women's crotches without consent, so how is it an important story that he might have had consensual sex with a porn star?
Discovered Jordan Peterson on YouTube. The guy talks some sense and in my assessment generally comes across as more reasonable than the people engaging him on video.
Trump was recorded boasting about grabbing women's crotches without consent, so how is it an important story that he might have had consensual sex with a porn star?
Well his wife might consider it an important story, noticed she cancelled out on Davos trip.
The UK/AU press has published a lot of rumors about a spat, US press not so much.
The guy talks some sense and in my assessment generally comes across as more reasonable than the people engaging him on video.
... You realize the dude is constantly harping about how un-scientific everyone else is, yet allows himself to claim that the egyptian snake coiled around a cup was somehow inspired by an intuitive knowledge of the double helix structure of ADN?
Someone who teaches a course named "Maps of Meaning", whose curriculum promises that someone who has analyzed his experiences according to the method taught will never have negative emotions about it... That's not the champion POMO fears.
Reply to Akanthinos Well, no, I don't know that because I've never heard him claim anything of the sort, and until you brought it up just now, I've never seen anyone attribute such things to him. I've just seen several YouTube videos of him discussing things like freedom of speech, language, politics, sociology, and law. And I checked out his Wikipedia page.
Well, no, I don't know that because I've never heard him claim anything of the sort, and until you brought it up just now, I've never seen anyone attribute such things to him.
Reply to Akanthinos Is it? In hindsight, I would call that into question. A skewed and uncharitable blog post, full of cheap shots, childish name calling, selective quotes taken out of context, ad homs...
I mean, I'm sure the man has said some stuff which I wouldn't agree with, and which would raise an eyebrow, but ...really? Better to watch one his lectures or read one of his books and make your own mind up.
A skewed and uncharitable blog post, full of cheap shots, childish name calling, selective quotes taken out of context, ad homs...
MacClean's is Canada's Paris Match. Tabatha Southey is a solid columnist. Hardly a blogpost.
Then again, if you are the type to respond positively to Perterson's bullshit, you probably wouldn't respond well to a column piece saying that people who respond well to Perterson's bullshit are just stupid. :B
MacClean's is Canada's Paris Match. Tabatha Southey is a solid columnist. Hardly a blogpost.
Yeah yeah, I googled "Maclean's" too late, although at least I've spelt it correctly. I should have googled it first, but it does look to me like a blog post. Hmm... a "solid" columnist? What does that even mean? If you say so. Struck me as purposefully one-sided with an immature style which does her no credit.
Then again, if you are the type to respond positively to Perterson's bullshit, you probably wouldn't respond well to a column piece saying that people who respond well to Perterson's bullshit are just stupid.
No, I think that bullshit from anyone is, well, bullshit. But it's not all bullshit and it doesn't take much skill to cherry pick quotes like that.
StreetlightJanuary 29, 2018 at 04:18#1477710 likes
As someone on my facebook put it, Peterson's appeal is to philosobros, whose 'radicality' stems from defending the status quo wherever he finds it. And anyone who takes Jung seriously disqualifies him or herself from any discussion, anywhere.
Maybe, but the article from an intellectual point of view should be highly embarrassing to its author. It's an absolute hit piece. I don't agree with Peterson on everything but against this kind of amateur attack (or Cathy Newman's) he'll win every time. I actually haven't seen a nuanced criticism of the guy anywhere. If anyone can point me in the right direction....
Struck me as purposefully one-sided with an immature style which does her no credit.
Or, perhaps, there is just no other side to the story, and Peterson is an attention-seeking idiot. In such a case, more credit to her for putting him on display as such. And yes, pretty much everyone here in Canada hate Peterson. Well, unless you are on his Patreon.
Maybe, but the article is from an intellectual point of view should be highly embarrassing to its author. It's an absolute hit piece.
The target doesn't warrant anything else.
Think of all the vitriol that was reserved to Pinker a few years ago when "evo-psycho" started being a dirty word. This dude deserves it all, contrary to Pinker.
Saying the target doesn't warrant a sophisticated, rational or intellectual response sounds like the attitude of someone incapable of providing one. I mean we're at least dealing with an individual who is, whether his detractors want to acknowledge it or not, an academic. We're not talking Richard Spencer, David Duke or Donald Trump here. The left only embarrasses itself when it has nothing but knee-jerk reactions or nasty little take-downs to offer, and I say that as someone whose sympathies are much more on the left than the right.
StreetlightJanuary 29, 2018 at 05:08#1477820 likes
Reply to Baden Ah, I wasn't referring to the article, which I've not read. Peterson's biggest sin for me is simply his banality. I was curious about him for a while and spent some time - time I'll not get back - watching a few of his videos, and what struck me most was simply the lack of any fat to chew on. There was simply so little by way of interesting argument that I just felt it was all a complete waste of time.
I get some of that impression from JP too, and it puts me off him as a person. I don't think he realizes the extent to which he projects his own personality traits through his philosophy, (which is odd considering his focus on psychology) but the article doesn't really tackle what he actually says, and the way it gets exaggerated and distorted by those on the left who seem incapable of distinguishing between fascist ideologues and conservative intellectuals.
Saying the target doesn't warrant a sophisticated, rational or intellectual response sounds like the attitude of someone incapable of providing one. I mean we're at least dealing with an individual who is, whether his detractors want to acknowledge it or not, an academic.
An academic specialised in Jungian psychology, who allows himself to claim that multiple other departements in his own University should be closed because they are 'pseudosciences'. You can choose to engage someone like that and believe it speaks of your intellectual integrity : I choose to believe this just means you are naive and undiscerning.
What is even the point? Who enrolls in a PoMo-centric cursus without being aware of it? Who the fuck enrolls in U of T without knowing it's the one of the biggest center of gender studies in the world? Why, in any and all planes of existence, would you even want to enroll there if you can't bear feminism?
I choose to believe this just means you are naive and undiscerning.
Actually, it means no more than I believe in rational engagement with those who I disagree with unless they are intellectually incapable of responding in kind. That doesn't mean taking on every argument but not everything the guy says is nuts and he shouldn't be so easily dismissed. And he definitely shouldn't be strawmanned the way he was in the article you referenced or in the Cathy Newman interview. It's totally counterproductive not only intellectually but politically. If his position is so weak why can't it be dismantled (should someone bother to do so) without resorting to hysterical exaggerations that make his opposition look desperate?
If his position is so weak why can't it be dismantled (should someone bother to do so) without resorting to hysterical exaggerations that make his opposition look desperate?
What hysterical exagerations? If someone told you the basis of gender problems is that men cannot hit women in an socially acceptable manner, that there is no physical threat of violence in male-female interactions, and because of that, women are free to spend their entire lifes disrespecting men, do you need to engage that person? Imho, no, you don't. It's the equivalent of posting low quality OPs here.
This is not a strawman. This is the actual claim of Peterson. Hysterical strawmanning is, in fact, the name of the game he has mastered, and that his status enables all his followers to also do. So, no, you shouldn't engage that. All it does is invite more alt-right types to burst a vein about freedom of speech violations.
If someone told you the basis of gender problems is that men cannot hit women in an socially acceptable manner, that there is no physical threat of violence in male-female interactions, and because of that, women are free to spend their entire lifes disrespecting men, do you need to engage that person?
“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”
Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”
“I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me,” he says.
I think it's unnecessary to make the point that men cannot use the implicit threat of violence against women in the way they can against men (in a socially acceptable manner) and so find themselves at a loss to deal with certain forms of female behaviour. It also could be taken to imply a desire that this were not the case (even though it doesn't necessarily). So an ill-advised comment. (Silly to use the term "crazy women" too.)
the basis of gender problems is that men cannot hit women in an socially acceptable manner,
That's a clear strawman on the basis of the quotes you provided above. Nowhere did he say this issue was "the basis of gender problems". And this kind of misrepresentation is just the type of thing the left shouldn't do if it's to be taken seriously.
StreetlightJanuary 29, 2018 at 07:10#1478100 likes
Oh god, I watched about 3/4s of the Paglia/Peterson discussion a while back and just had to stop. It was such a rambly mess of a talk, and the whole discussion about not being able to hit women, and how - I'm recalling from fuzzy memory - how women were quite happy in their capacity as caregivers and homestayers and it was much better for them before they moved into traditional men's roles was so barbaric that I think that's about when I turned it off.
I don't know if he leaves himself open for this sort of thing purposely or not. He says he's not a deliberate provocateur but I've often thought he is (and I've tweeted some sarcastic comments in his direction on that presumption). The fact is though if you have the patience to sift through it, he often doesn't actually say what's attributed to him.
That's a clear strawman on the basis of the quotes you provided above.
Jesus if you want to subject yourself to the whole thing, go ahead, it's linked right there. I don't have a full transcript and sure as hell won't be the one to sit through the thing to type it down.
“If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”
If reading these clear implications from his discourse, if that's your definition of hysterical strawmanning, then I definitly won't be able make you see things from my point of view. :s
Jesus if you want to subject yourself to the whole thing, go ahead, it's linked right there. I don't have a full transcript and sure as hell won't be the one to sit through the thing to type it down.
Your exasperation doesn't cut much ice. The fact is that hand-waving in the general direction of an article when asked for a quote to back up a specific claim only demonstrates you can't do what's asked of you. Which is exactly the problem.
...if that's your definition of hysterical strawmanning..,
Actually, I didn't claim you were hysterical. I did claim you were strawmanning. And this is another (albeit fairly mild) example.
StreetlightJanuary 29, 2018 at 07:36#1478150 likes
Reply to Baden There's a certain genre of philosobroing - not limited to Peterson - that trades very actively on 'I'm not being provocative, I'm just telling it like it is' as a very clear rhetorical tool. It leverages (a veneer of) sincerity all the better to say provocative things - a rhetorical tool masquerading as a disavowal of rhetoric. I don't particularly begrudge anyone who uses it, but I do think there are plenty who buy into it - wittingly or not - and I think those people are idiots.
My inner jury is still out on JP's awareness that he's doing this, but those on the right that exalt him as some kind of anti-PC hero and therefore all-in with their stupidity are indeed idiots.
I've become more mellow on Peterson over time. The secret with him is not to take everything he says at face value, because he's talking to a specific audience everytime.
He's arguably a very powerful and well-educated speaker, much more educated than his opponents for that matter. A lot of what he says (such as the importance of honesty, and how lying relates to pathologies) is very significant. As for some people who think Jung shouldn't be taken seriously - they're idiots.
Peterson's main shortcoming, in my opinion, is that he has serious holes in his philosophical education. Virtually no understanding of Aristotle/Plato, or pretty much the entire history of philosophy until Nietzsche and the phenomenologists/existentialists/pragmatists after. That's something that is evident.
If you like Peterson's analysis of mythology, you can try reading René Girard, who argues along very similar lines, but much more rigorous - Violence and the Sacred is a good book, or even Things Hidden Since the Foundation Of The World.
Or, perhaps, there is just no other side to the story, and Peterson is an attention-seeking idiot. In such a case, more credit to her for putting him on display as such. And yes, pretty much everyone here in Canada hate Peterson. Well, unless you are on his Patreon.
Only some leftists, in particular those who are (1) like being dishonest, (2) want to live in an utopia, (3) don't understand one word of what Peterson is saying.
There was simply so little by way of interesting argument that I just felt it was all a complete waste of time.
Oh yes, the incomprehensible POMO books are a lot more interesting, you can spend years and still not know what was being said - can't compete with that :>
how women were quite happy in their capacity as caregivers and homestayers and it was much better for them before they moved into traditional men's roles was so barbaric that I think that's about when I turned it off.
And maybe that was true. Why are you so sure they weren't happier in that role or social setting? And why is that barbaric?
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2018 at 12:17#1478470 likes
God. the guy is so ubiquitous. He's not getting a mention or a link from me.
He's very hard to dismantle because he doesn't have a position, only attitudes. There are only straw men to attack, because there is only fulminating complaint against the conspiracy, which if you question him you are part of wittingly or unwittingly. The great thing about Jung, Nietzsche, and Rand, the cited authorities, is that they too do not really make arguments, and so are almost impossible to defeat.
One is left with a vague but rugged (male) individualism, and anti-collectivism, as though a university was not a collective, some moral platitudes disguised as psychological science, and a nostalgia for the mythological good old days when men were men and women were grateful and ***s knew their place.
One such position is the centrality of speaking the truth (or what you, at a certain time, perceive to be the truth), regardless of consequences. If you are dishonest and do not speak what you perceive to be the truth - or at least avoid speaking what you know is false - then you will start pathologising your structures of perception. Over time this will lead to psychopathology, where you no longer perceive reality correctly. That's a position you could argue against, but lo and behold, you don't.
Another position is the importance of mythology in structuring our lives. The world isn't just a set of facts, it's also a forum for action. Learning what you should do in the world is as important as learning what the world is. Another clear position, that you could argue against, but you don't.
Another position is that the correct path to walk is the middle-path between nihilism on one side and totalitarianism on the other. Some people want to eradicate all evil and problems from the world, so that we can all be safe (that's your leftists) - that leads to totalitarianism and the enslavement of the individual. The other path is nihilism, where there is no concern for the world and others at all. The middle-path there is to accept vulnerabilities and focus on building up the strength of the person so that they can BEAR all the evil and suffering of the world. So instead of trying to make the world better, as totalitarianism does, you try to make the person more capable to deal with the world as it is. Again, you don't argue against it.
Another position is the unity of the community that is formed on the background of the sacrificial victim - the 99% against the 1% that you so frequently see today. So peace achieved through sacrifice of another, instead of through self-sacrifice - the way Christ showed. And so on so on. These are actual positions, but you're lazy, so of course, you probably don't even know about them. Easier to say that it is impossible to defeat.
One such position is the centrality of speaking the truth (or what you, at a certain time, perceive to be the truth), regardless of consequences. If you are dishonest and do not speak what you perceive to be the truth - or at least avoid speaking what you know is false - then you will start pathologising your structures of perception. Over time this will lead to psychopathology, where you no longer perceive reality correctly. That's a position you could argue against, but lo and behold, you don't.
Another position is the importance of mythology in structuring our lives. The world isn't just a set of facts, it's also a forum for action. Learning what you should do in the world is as important as learning what the world is. Another clear position, that you could argue against, but you don't.
Another position is that the correct path to walk is the middle-path between nihilism on one side and totalitarianism on the other. Some people want to eradicate all evil and problems from the world, so that we can all be safe (that's your leftists) - that leads to totalitarianism and the enslavement of the individual. The other path is nihilism, where there is no concern for the world and others at all. The middle-path there is to accept vulnerabilities and focus on building up the strength of the person so that they can BEAR all the evil and suffering of the world. So instead of trying to make the world better, as totalitarianism does, you try to make the person more capable to deal with the world as it is. Again, you don't argue against it.
This. So much this. So there's much pose-striking without substance, a mood or air that simply demands agreement or rejection without reflection.
Oh yeah, says who? You? Arguably the guy who reads entire books by verbose people with no substance to communicate? :s
Clearly, you have not listened to the man carefully and systematically, because if you had, you'd be able to obtain a handful of very important positions that he holds. I mentioned about 4 important ones above, but there are many more.
People say the same kind of nonsense that you and UN say about René Girard - that it can't be proven wrong, etc. etc. Nonsense. 99% of those people, you two included, have not read and understood the available material.
Reply to unenlightened How are those moral platitudes? With regards to speaking the truth, I was not aware that lying is dangerous for your own psyche before I listened to Peterson for example.
And because you haven't read and understood the material, and yet you are dismissing it because you don't like the conclusions emotionally, that means you are dishonest. You're not speaking the truth. Because your truth should be "I have only watched few Peterson lectures, I haven't read Maps of Meanings, so I don't know what to say about him yet. I will read more, try to understand his points better, and then I will decide what my position is".
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2018 at 12:53#1478560 likes
Reply to Agustino You should have read Aesop's Fables, 'the boy who cried 'wolf'.' 'And the moral of that is...'
You should have read Aesop's Fables, 'the boy who cried 'wolf'.' 'And the moral of that is...'
Yeah, the moral of that story is that if you lie once, and you're caught lying, people won't believe you next time. Doesn't sound like such a terrible consequence. The consequences Peterson is talking about are a lot more terrible, and it doesn't matter if you're caught or not (in fact, it's worse if you're not caught). Not only will others not believe you, the bigger problem is that you yourself will no longer be capable to perceive what the truth is, and will develop actual psychopathology and mental health illness. Now THAT point, I haven't heard before, and even if I have, I wasn't aware of it, because it wasn't phrased in a clear way that spoke to me.
It is amazing how full this world has become of liars and deceivers, everyone having an opinion on everything, even things they don't know anything about! And then there are some lunatics who even think they should impose their ideological nonsense on everyone else - like that guy who thought I should get banned because I think there are biological differences between men and women and cited the case of testosterone as evidence *shakes head*... Some people will stop at nothing from trying to re-enact sacrifice and impose their totalitarian ideologies on everyone else.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 29, 2018 at 13:15#1478680 likes
Not only will others not believe you, the bigger problem is that you yourself will no longer be capable to perceive what the truth is, and will develop actual psychopathology and mental health illness.
A fate worse than death. Is there an argument? is there some evidence? Is there something other than a platitude, or perhaps a beatitude?
Of course dishonesty is psychologically damaging. Don't do it. Now give me some money for my stunning insight.
Of course dishonesty is psychologically damaging. Don't do it. Now give me some money for my stunning insight.
Thank you, I would have bought from you, but you're too late now. The new Bill Gates will not sell an operating system (as Peter Thiel, a student of René Girard, once said).
He varies between self-helpy stuff e.g. concerning Jungian concepts such as shadow integration and so on, and empirically-based arguments e.g. that men and women's average IQs and cognitive abilities are equal but their personality traits differ in specific ways that have important consequences. I don't think he's any less vigorous than he should be considering his attempt to appeal to a general audience. And again, he seems to run rings around whatever opposition he encounters (so far as I've seen). So, he warrants a more sophisticated approach than blanket dismissal in my view. And the reason he doesn't get one seems to be at least partly because he gets too closely associated with his alt-right fans who really are not worth debating.
And as a consequence you get protests with college kids shouting unsupportable stuff like "Transphobic piece of shit" at him (though there's no credible evidence that he is transphobic) and in the process fueling the impression that left wingers are ignorant and intolerant.
... he warrants a more sophisticated approach than blanket dismissal in my view. And the reason he doesn't get one seems to be at least partly because he gets too closely associated with his alt-right fans who really are not worth debating.
I disagree. The reason he doesn't get one is that he only runs rings, and stands for nothing.
and in the process fueling the impression that left wingers are ignorant and intolerant.
And a vast majority of them are ignorant and intolerant. Don't get me wrong, but many of the people you find in Universities today have no place there.
I used to have a worse impression of Peterson, because at first, it seemed to me that he's a generally stuck up person who thinks everyone should be one way. But then I listened to this lecture of his, where he said "you should not play video games 10 hours a day", and then he added "unless you want to turn pro". So that's when I got it, that many times he doesn't add the ending bit, and it seems that he doesn't consider the desires of the individual. But after I got that, I no longer had much against him.
Reply to TimeLine The man's been riding my back hard yo. You think you could send me a pic of you doing some bad shit, you know, an outlaw pic to get me through my day?
But then I listened to this lecture of his, where he said "you should not play video games 10 hours a day", and then he added "unless you want to turn pro".
Where he said "You should not play video games 10 hours a day unless you want to turn pro" I would have added to the end of that "like an idiot." I'm sort of like Peterson in that way in that you have to listen to everything I say and not stop listening because the last thing I say sometimes matters unless it doesn't.
Reply to Hanover >:O, see, I don't like that style of thinking. I think professional video game player is a reasonable career choice, and some people do it. If it's something that you like doing, and you're competitive that way, and you can make money out of it, why not? It should be encouraged.
It's not our business to put our noses in how other people choose to be productive.
In America, "pants" means trousers, not underwear like it does in Britain. I think we should come to an agreement that American is going to be spoken here and not the many backwater variations of English that the uneducated speak around the globe.
If it's something that you like doing, and you're competitive that way, and you can make money out of it, why not? It should be encouraged.
Because you won't make money at it and you'll just tell your parents that you're being productive in hanging out in the basement eating Cheetos and screaming at the TV screen. Then one day when you're like 30 years old and 400 pounds, you'll have to finally admit that you destroyed your life playing video games and your parents will be sad they raised a loser who won't clean up his room or feed the dog. Then when your parents die, they'll have to cut a hole in the wall and use a forklift to remove you from the home and you'll appear on daytime TV where people will get outraged you're being body shamed. How many times must this exact scenario get played out before we learn? We're better than this!
Because you won't make money at it and you'll just tell your parents that you're being productive in hanging out in the basement eating Cheetos and screaming at the TV screen.
Ummm, there are ways to make money at it. I haven't played video games in close to 10 years, but I remember that you could make good money if you played Starcraft at a professional level (and were Korean lol). But have a look here for example:
https://www.esportsearnings.com/players
That's only prize money from competing and winning. There's also massive amounts of money spent in advertising. For example, in Korea Starcraft was almost a national sport - big brands always sponsored the tournaments, the players, etc.
Some of those people you laugh about make more than you do probably.
But I do agree with you that if they're using video games as an excuse not to do anything productive, that's a different story.
Then one day when you're like 30 years old and 400 pounds, you'll have to finally admit that you destroyed your life playing video games and your parents will be sad they raised a loser who won't clean up his room or feed the dog. Then when your parents die, they'll have to cut a hole in the wall and use a forklift to remove you from the home and you'll appear on daytime TV where people will get outraged you're being body shamed.
>:O >:O >:O sounds like a life with few, but quite exciting moments!
Reply to Hanover In a way, it's like the kid who always kicks the ball around on the street. Some people do that with no intention of ever becoming professional players, and others are looking to become footballers. If your kid is like that, then you should try to help him - you know, get him to play for an actual team, and so on. That's important to help someone develop around what they like.
The hardest thing for most is to find what they like. So if your kid is one of the lucky ones, and already knows and is committed to something, that should be supported in my view.
The hardest thing for most is to find what they like. So if your kid is one of the lucky ones, and already knows and is committed to something, that should be supported in my view.
Actually, if my kid was really good at soccer, but not absolutely amazing, I'd tell him he had no chance of making pro. That's not being discouraging. That's being honest.
Actually, if my kid was really good at soccer, but not absolutely amazing, I'd tell him he had no chance of making pro. That's not being discouraging. That's being honest.
Yeah, except, how can you be sure of that? It's a sort of relative thing isn't it? How do you judge his skill compared to everyone else? If he's the best soccer player on his high school team, and you sent him to play for some local team, and he shines there too, then naturally you should encourage him to try and go higher. There's no way to know unless you get him to try it.
And even if he doesn't have what it takes to succeed as a soccer player, there are other jobs that are related to what he loves (soccer) that he can do. He can train to become a coach, sports doctor, etc. etc. So there are a lot of ways to go from there. It's not like the skills you learn in trying to become a professional football player cannot be used for other things.
I have a friend who tried to become a professional tennis player, and he did get in top 1000 in the world and participated in some tournaments, but very small earnings. So by age 25 he had nothing basically. And so he worked giving tennis lessons to others, saved money, and now he owns his own courts and has his own tennis club. So if the person fails in one thing, it doesn't mean he or she cannot succeed in something related.
Even people who did end up shining, many of them did not realise it early. For example, Schwarzenegger, his father tried his best to stop him from wasting time with bodybuilding and getting a real job. When he was in the army, they did the same. And he had to run away from the army to participate in a bodybuilding competition.
So my advice, in such cases, when the parents are not cooperative, are that their child should try to do it anyway. It's his or her life afterall. And maybe not listening to what others say is part of the makeup of those who succeed - maybe it is what it takes.
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2018 at 19:06#1480170 likes
And there you have it. He who must not be named takes the strong position that one should not let one's child play computer games for ten hours a day, unless one should. And then folks say he deserves a rebuttal.
He who must not be named takes the strong position that one should not let one's child play computer games for ten hours a day, unless one should.
Why is that unreasonable? That's how it actually is, life is complicated. That position could be rebutted if you had another position like Hanover does for example. It depends on the actual situation - does your child really want to become a professional video game player? Is he good at it? Has he tried participating in online competitions, and he was successful? And so on... but if your child's dream is to become a doctor (say), then it would be a waste of time for him to spend 10 hours per day playing video games, and you ought to discourage that.
unenlightenedJanuary 29, 2018 at 19:12#1480210 likes
Reply to unenlightened Hmmm if authentic means original then they are both authentic and inauthentic. Authentic in the sense that they are fleshed out clearly and other sources are not saying them in modern times, but inauthentic in the sense that they already exist, either in a fleshed out form or in cognito in previous sources - the Bible, Ancient Greek philosophy and René Girard. In fact, some people have been accusing Jordan Peterson of plagiarising René Girard, and there may be something there, since JPB literarily never mentioned Girard until that interview with him that I posted, where he looked a bit uncomfortable when Girard was mentioned and was pretty much agreeing with everything.
It would not surprise me, a lot of his ideas (certainly the big 4 I mentioned), are similar to Girard's ideas. Even the criticism against Peterson by people like you is the same as the criticism against Girard. But you have not spent time understanding their work.
But the fact that some people argue that JPB is a guy who has no ideas, and they compare him to Ayn Rand, etc. is utterly ridiculous. JPB taught at Harvard, he is, at the very least, a cultured man by today's standards.
I have a friend who tried to become a professional tennis player, and he did get in top 1000 in the world and participated in some tournaments, but very small earnings. So by age 25 he had nothing basically. And so he worked giving tennis lessons to others, saved money, and now he owns his own courts and has his own tennis club. So if the person fails in one thing, it doesn't mean he or she cannot succeed in something related.
Yeah, and now he's relegated to hitting balls back and forth to middle aged housewives whose husbands work all day so that they can drink mimosas and screw the tennis coach. He'll get in his forties and his knees and elbows will scream in pain while he stands on the pavement in the hot sun wishing he'd have stayed in school and not chased his dream and regretting he didn't have a good father to have told him "son, you're good, just not that good." And once he realizes he took the wrong path, it'll be too late, and his parents will be sad they raised a loser and they'll start forgetting where they left their pants. He'll try to help them, but they'll be so ornery he'd rather just be alone, and then once the depression sets in, he'll turn to internet porn, which will give him only shameful fleeting comfort. When will we all learn? Great God Almighty. When will we all learn!
Yeah, and now he's relegated to hitting balls back and forth to middle aged housewives whose husbands work all day so that they can drink mimosas and screw the tennis coach. He'll get in his forties and his knees and elbows will scream in pain while he stands on the pavement in the hot sun wishing he'd have stayed in school and not chased his dream and regretting he didn't have a good father to have told him "son, you're good, just not that good." And once he realizes he took the wrong path, it'll be too late, and his parents will be sad they raised a loser and they'll start forgetting where they left their pants. He'll try to help them, but they'll be so ornery he'd rather just be alone, and then once the depression sets in, he'll turn to internet porn, which will give him only shameful fleeting comfort. When will we all learn? Great God Almighty. When will we all learn!
>:O >:O >:O
Yeah, but he enjoys running a tennis club. He has other coaches working for him too, so he doesn't do as much of the coaching himself nowadays. That means he gets to spend lots of time with the bored housewives talking after the games X-) . He's trying to grow currently, he's been adding courts, one year or so ago he installed that bubble thing around the courts for winter play too, etc. He seems to be doing well, though I haven't visited him there for quite awhile. He did acquire some debt though I think, so probably he'll be having to pay that in the future.
And tennis is actually not a hard sport to play, especially if you don't play with young, up and coming people, and you have a lot of training. Like a good tennis instructor can easily play against a novice without moving much. And there are people who play well into even their 70s (one time when I went during a summer, there was this 60-70 year old man playing in his actual underwear because it was too hot for him >:O - hilarious to see)
The man's been riding my back hard yo. You think you could send me a pic of you doing some bad shit, you know, an outlaw pic to get me through my day?
What the fandangle? It's always "give me this TL" or "give me that TL" but what about me? You know what you can do, you can crawl back into your hole and brood over lost opportunities with blind, banned girls into astrology.
What the fandangle? It's always "give me this TL" or "give me that TL" but what about me? You know what you can do, you can crawl back into your hole and brood over lost opportunities with blind, banned girls into astrology.
Is the world full of only baloney-pony heads?
I done let you down. Why can't I ever get it right? She meant nothing to me. I swear. She played me, knowing my weakness for the eyeless. But you, with the pic of the arced brow made me realize I like eyed girls better. How can I convince you? And that ice cream. I mean hold off. You know I don't like a big bedunkadunk. I'm rambling, not making sense. I'm a blubbering mess. Just look at me.
I think there’s a disagreement I have with Jordan Peterson that is foundational for my other disagreements with him. He has a lot of talks on venerating and revivifying our western culture to preserve what is good in it, there’s a bunch of arguments he has to show this.
The first one is, roughly, venerating and revivifying Western culture is what a psychologically mature and healthy being would do. without an organising principle or cultural myth, people are lost and confused - seeking that eternal father figure or ‘master signifier’ as it’s called in Freudian/Lacanian critical theory. This element is sometimes called the 'tyrannical father' in his lectures.
The second is that there are inherent properties of humans that lead to successful and non-successful cultures, and these roughly correspond to humans who have belief systems that allow them space to move or be an authentic being, living within their own adopted but culturally informed value systems.
So successful culture = allows potential of authentic being, non-successful culture = does not allow this potential.
For Peterson, to be authentic is to live in accordance with your conscience and beliefs and affect the world around you to that end, I think he believes this is also what it means to be a morally responsible adult - since any authentic being would discover within themselves a normative and moral core. If this cannot be realised due to cultural conditions, then that culture should be disregarded and safeguarded against. This is actually pretty similar to one of the first heralds of postmodernity, Nietzsche, and the authentic being concept he uses is stripped from existentialist philosophy more generally. he’s also a fan of Nietzsche.
But he remained a Christian (a Christian theologically inspired worldview, if not a practicing one), despite agreeing with the ‘devastating attack’ (his words not mine) that Nietzsche produced on the christian moral system and its metaphysics. He largely agrees that 'God is dead and we have killed him'. So he follows Nietzsche part of the way through his ‘destruction of metaphysics’, in proclaiming/noticing that the christian narrative (with its holy father of a master signifier) is largely dead. but he seeks to salvage some of the remains in a fashion to allow the west to safeguard the progress that modernity has granted. In essence, he's a conceptual grave-robber, seeking the best aspects of humanity in the 'sepulchres of God'.
But at this point, he’s quite silent on any positive conception of Western culture - other than whatever the hell it is has brought progress, technological advancement, and a global decrease in poverty. He’s allowed not to have such an architectonic vision because that’s explicitly what his existential psychology grounding rejects. Do what you can, where you can, and by what you believe.
This elides that the condition of postmodernity as a broad theme of Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard and Barthes - who he does not like at all - is precisely the absence of any normative organising principle that gives order and inherent meaning to peoples’ lives. The cultural malaise and metaphysical nihilism that he highlights as our lot in the west is in part a consequence of the singular insistence on authenticity and living within your beliefs. that’s why it’s chaos.
He then says that this chaos makes proper Western ideas easy to subjugate to united barbarism or people obsessed with the meaninglessness of everything. the west remains secular in spite of this, why? I’d suggest it has something to do with a formless, frothing sea of personal ideology and authentic expression being impossible to attack for any systematised philosophy or religion. Far from arming us to slay his 'dragons of chaos', he is an ideological parasite exonerating the individualistic notion of identity which created the dragon through social malaise in the first place.
So in essence, he shouts ‘do it better’, which is exactly what everyone who has a conscience is shouting, and this is a symptom of his belonging and symbiotic relationship with postmodernity. If he were right, he couldn’t appeal to others in the way he does; like a self help book with citations. The citations are usually wrong insofar as they concern the existential and postmodern traditions - confusing Nietzsche with Camus and Lacan with Heidegger on points. He also never actually goes through a textual analysis of his major bugbear Derrida - spouting unrepresentative and uncharitable drivel along with his cherrypicked headliner quotes (eg: find one discussion he has of 'there's nothing outside the text' which doesn't devolve into a tirade on Nihilism).
Fox News has a "Right" bias and "Mixed" accuracy. Also "deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact", Politifact being "Least Biased" with an accuracy of "High".
Better to watch something like the BBC. Only a slight lean towards "Left-Center", although still closer to "Least Biased", but has an accuracy of "Very High".
There's also Reuters which is "Least Biased" and has an accuracy of "Very High". Might have more American news than the BBC.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 30, 2018 at 18:47#1482690 likes
You would think that a buying agent "looking out for our best interest" in buying a property up North to build into our Bed and Breakfast, would have LOOKED at the codes regarding the TWO properties we drove an hour and a half to see, right? For 3% commission all this dude is going to do is open doors for us? I think not. We are the buyers and WE HAVE to do our due diligence but I don't think the relator should get the commissions they are getting. Has anyone ever tried to handle a real estate transaction without a relator?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff If the seller has a relator, they'll handle the paperwork for you. Of course, you're going to have to do the negotiations yourself. It sounds like what you need is a different relator, not no relator. It's a funny story though. You drove all the way there and had to look in the windows.
You would think that a buying agent "looking out for our best interest" in buying a property up North to build into our Bed and Breakfast, would have LOOKED at the codes regarding the TWO properties we drove an hour and a half to see, right? For 3% commission all this dude is going to do is open doors for us? I think not. We are the buyers and WE HAVE to do our due diligence but I don't think the relator should get the commissions they are getting. Has anyone ever tried to handle a real estate transaction without a relator?
I'm finding out that pretty much all these middlemen, unless you have prior connections with them, seek not to do anything and get paid. At some points, it kind of gets outrageous, since they literarily do nothing. I'm in a similar situation right now, but not with property though. I've learned to be very very tough with people who do work for me, because from the start most of it ends up being poor quality work - it's rare to find someone who does good work at reasonable prices.
But you, with the pic of the arced brow made me realize I like eyed girls better. How can I convince you?
You like my eyes? You know, not many people know it is a deep brown, but that if you look close enough it has a dark blue ring around it with tiny speckles of green.
Alright, fine, I forgives you. But, you still have some work to do. I call this "Walking Into The Wrong House" in my Stop Looking At Your Phone collection. You jealous that I get to wear Birkenstocks while you cover your disgusting, damaged toe in shitty boots?
You like my eyes? You know, not many people know it is a deep brown, but that if you look close enough it has a dark blue ring around it with tiny speckles of green.
To be fair, I can only say I like your eye because you only provided me a picture of one of them. You might be like one of those dogs that has different colored eyes, or maybe you have a glass eye or wandering eye. But, yes, I did find myself losing myself in the gaze of that eye.
I have blue/green eyes, which means some Aryan must've jumped the fence at some point in my genetic past. If you look closely into my eyes (and trust me, you will), other than seeing eternity, you will see little black flecks, sort of like the imperfections you might see in an emerald that make each of them unique. I often wax poetic over my eyes, and should you see them (and trust me, you will), you will as well.Quoting TimeLine
You jealous that I get to wear Birkenstocks while you cover your disgusting, damaged toe in shitty boots?
I actually have worn your Birkenstocks. I tied my shirt into a cute little knot, put on my sassiest ripped up blue jean shorts, put my glasses down my shirt, and blindly walked down the street, unable to see much, but looking like I owned the cobblestone street. It's actually really cold here because it's not upside down here like it is there.
Reply to Baden any poll with this many questions related to religion is just trying to tell you you're really religious even if you don't know it yourself.
In light of the fact that Nietzsche has received 0% from almost everyone here who's taken this test--WTF with Baden at 92% though?!--I feel like whoever set this up must have an extremely narrow and unnuanced way of understanding of his thought.
Maybe it's the way the questions are framed in binary ways or something, but that sort of simplified approach to moral (and other philosophically-related) issues is a bit unfair to someone like Nietzsche.
Interesting idea to put something like this together but maybe it could use a bit more subtlety. Or maybe I'm the one who's been misinterpreting Nietzsche all these years? That's a legitimate possibility.
Clearly something wrong with it as I responded negatively to the deontological ethics question.
Right. And how you could you possibly get Nietzsche at 92% while also getting Augustine at 73%? Not to mention Kant at 100%. I'd assume there'd be an inverse correlation between these two seemingly opposed thinkers.
But I've already forgotten most of the questions and there may an explanation for this strange result. Perhaps they're more alike in fundamental ways than I'd imagined.
I expected to come out fairly Nietzschean. Don't know why no one else could manage it.
StreetlightFebruary 01, 2018 at 10:34#1487320 likes
I answered disagree to almost all the questions and ended up with Kant on top. I suspect he's just the default. At least I was zero percent on Plato, which is entirely as it should be.
What. The. Fuzzball? Even though I clearly said Agree - High Priority to questions like we do not directly experience the world; we interpret it through our concepts and The most important moral values are being free ourselves and respecting the freedom of others. This is unacceptable.
What. The. Fuzzball? Even though I clearly said Agree - High Priority to questions like we do not directly experience the world; we interpret it through our concepts and The most important moral values are being free ourselves and respecting the freedom of others. This is unacceptable.
Reply to Michael It should have been 100% Kant, then Aristotle. It certainly does not explain Augustine, who has the intellectual rigour of a dried leaf. During Spring
Reply to TimeLine Then the best explanation is that the algorithm used by the person who made it doesn't accurately show the complexities of the test-taker's philosophical views.
Took you a long time, but I knew you're a conservative at heart. :D
I'm generally not, but I see some issues, like those with which Jordan Peterson is most associated with, as being characterised as a conflict between that which is practical, sensible, and liberal on the one hand, and that which is impractical, silly, and authoritarian on the other. I'm most definitely on the left, and more closely fit the description of a progressive than a conservative, but I will readily disassociate myself with some of its more radical aspects which do not align with my views or way of thinking.
In the current political climate, I readily offer my support to further the interests of the working class, and would rebalance the scales, but I do not offer my support to this group of conceited clowns who demand that others adopt this peculiar use of language in reference to themselves.
I take issue with some of these contemporary versions of identity politics.
Then the best explanation is that the algorithm used by the person who made it doesn't accurately show the complexities of the test-taker's philosophical views.
I said that I cannot prove neither disprove the existence of God, and I am suddenly Augustinian, while Nietzsche appears to be demonised. Nay, I think it is just another test developed by someone like Agu.
StreetlightFebruary 01, 2018 at 11:07#1487420 likes
DNA has an in-built mechanism for varying the frequency of copying errors, which is basically an evolved mechanism for accelerating evolution (and also with the possibility of murdering you from the inside - cancer - but then, natural selection will take care of you). Immanent directed randomness :D
Reply to StreetlightX I think what is astounding is their capacity to actually examine this process and it makes sense when considering how people differ so dramatically to their susceptibility with various illnesses; someone could smoke their entire life and still live to be 100.
And as a consequence you get protests with college kids shouting unsupportable stuff like "Transphobic piece of shit" at him (though there's no credible evidence that he is transphobic) and in the process fueling the impression that left wingers are ignorant and intolerant.
Oh yes, exactly. But it's not just college kids. There are video debates involving him and other professionals or apparent authorities, like this one including Peterson and this guy who I think was a professor of transgender studies, where I would contrast Peterson's sensible views with the professor's hyperbolic nonsense.
Maybe he only seems like such a beacon of good sense when they put him up against such pretentious idiots. But so long as there are pretentious idiots in the limelight and gaining traction, I'm glad that there's a Jordan Peterson to combat them.
StreetlightFebruary 01, 2018 at 11:32#1487490 likes
Reply to TimeLine Yeah, these days biochemistry and biophysics are advancing in leaps and strides - I can only hope it overtakes the dead-end that cosmology has now become in terms of it's science PR. So much cool stuff going on.
Then the best explanation is that the algorithm used by the person who made it doesn't accurately show the complexities of the test-taker's philosophical views.
Either that or Baden is the Übermensch and you're just a bunch of h8rs.
TheWillowOfDarknessFebruary 01, 2018 at 11:58#1487560 likes
The Nietzsche questions were a mixed. The ones dealing with contempt for God were sort of accurate, if you read God as transcendent metaphysics that only ignorant fools would have anything to do with.
Others were petty much terrible. One seemed to assume Nietzsche thought or values were subjective (I just assumed the question was talking about the context in which morality always occurs or the despite fact that people have different moral values), another was some nonsense about being the edgelord genius no-one understands (I just took this to be "Those fools following transcendent metaphysics don't understand what really true).
Pretty crazy to get a high score on Nietzsche, in my opinion. And some of the Plato questions I find the answer to be obvious.
I guess I got Hume, Kant and Aristotle in my top 3 because of my scientific, empirical, atheistic leanings. I'm quite happy with that top 3, and that Plato and Aquinas are in the bottom 3.
Why does Augustine score so highly in most of these results? Not sure how I got around 55% agreement with the guy. I would've thought I had more in common with Nietzsche than Augustine.
Others were petty much terrible. One seemed to assume Nietzsche thought or values were subjective (I just assumed the question was talking about the context in which morality always occurs or the despite fact that people have different moral values), another was some nonsense about being the edgelord genius no-one understands (I just took this to be "Those fools following transcendent metaphysics don't understand what really true).
If you believe that the most important moral values are being free ourselves and respecting the freedom of others, you would attempt to hold a more relativistic understanding of why people resort to transcendent metaphysics rather than dismissing them as fools. How they identify and articulate their experience is what Nietzsche referred to as perspectivism. Are you just another one demonising poor Nietz?
What. The. Fuzzball? Even though I clearly said Agree - High Priority to questions like we do not directly experience the world; we interpret it through our concepts and The most important moral values are being free ourselves and respecting the freedom of others. This is unacceptable.
More or less agreed, which he does. My point was the quiz seemed misunderstood this aspect, and confused it with truth or values. So the quiz is simultaneously getting Nietzsche's position on values wrong, while also implying he's far less pluralistic than he actually is.
His contempt, which the quiz vaguely get right, lies only in a narrow realm of metaphysical enquiry. While it's there, the foolishness of the mistake is neither here nor there in a lot of instances, as most of life is not metaphysical enquiry. Life is much bigger than if one think it's defined by another realm or worthless.
The ones dealing with contempt for God were sort of accurate, if you read God as transcendent metaphysics that only ignorant fools would have anything to do with.
I disagreed with "Only weak, cowardly people believe in God", which is the only question that matches your description there. Still got 92%. Anyhow, the test ain't all that good. Much less accurate (for me) even than this piece of badly-designed brain fluff: http://www.gotoquiz.com/which_philosopher_are_you which gave me the following results:
[i]We should live to be...
the person who understands and accepts life's absurdity.
the person who reaches Truth.
beyond good and evil. [/i](Lol)[i]
the perfect median, the virtous individual.
an ethical person, who acts only out of good will.[/i]
Top choice always gets 100%, easy. It doesn't matter if you agree with that person 100%. And bottom person always gets 0%. So 100% = most agree with (even if you don't fully agree, or you disagree on lots of things), and 0% = most disagree with.
I'm an Aristotle and Kant lover. The Aristotle is much as I had predicted.
"Well, I have news for the quantum mystic. Your worldview is a load of baloney, built upon mistake after mistake, a foolish understanding of the relationship between data and theory, and a complete lack of big-picture critical thinking. ... In order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work. The instruments of measurement physically interact with the system being measured. ... Let me be clear: no data – ever – has been produced to show that conscious observation is what collapses the wave function. Quite the opposite is true. ... Anyone who claims otherwise is either confused about basic terminology, or is an outright charlatan. “Observation” means physically recorded measurement and not conscious awareness."
There should be a forum bot that posts this automatically everytime some crackpot half-brain claims that QT requires conscious awareness.
Noble DustFebruary 02, 2018 at 05:41#1489830 likes
“Observation” means physically recorded measurement and not conscious awareness."
Is there observation without conscious awareness?
StreetlightFebruary 02, 2018 at 05:44#1489850 likes
In the context of QT, observation means physical interaction, that's it. One can play with definitions to one's heart's content, but one can't then read those made-up definitions back into QT.
Noble DustFebruary 02, 2018 at 05:49#1489880 likes
An especially unusual version of the observer effect occurs in quantum mechanics, as best demonstrated by the double-slit experiment. Physicists have found that even passive observation of quantum phenomena (by changing the test apparatus and passively 'ruling out' all but one possibility), can actually change the measured result; the 1998 Weizmann experiment is a particularly famous example. These findings have led to a popular misconception that observation by a conscious mind can directly affect reality, though this has been rejected by mainstream science. This misconception is rooted in a poor understanding of the quantum wave function ? and the quantum measurement process.
I'm an Aristotle and Kant lover. The Aristotle is much as I had predicted.
:-O Suddenly, very briefly, like a whisper, you were attractive to me until I realised it was you who posted this. I went backwards, you see, starting from the bottom of the page and scrolled upwards.
Reply to Hanover I guess it makes sense, considering the purpose of why you came up with inarticustupilackafecacleansia was to, wait, what was it again?
:-O Suddenly, very briefly, like a whisper, you were attractive to me until I realised it was you who posted this. I went backwards, you see, starting from the bottom of the page and scrolled upwards.
Good, thanks for admitting you hold a bias :D
On another note, @Baden, I have to go before a judge in less than 2 hours, you think they will capture me? >:O
I'm losing interest in philosophy... Am I getting old or does philosophy get better with time?
unenlightenedFebruary 02, 2018 at 21:20#1491610 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface Philosophy is parasitic on life, it's nature is reflexive. So every now and then, it's time to live a little. The unexamined life is not worth living, but the unlived life is not worth examining. " the sage avoids extremes, excesses, and complacency." - Lao Tzu.
In reading the above entry, I came across an interesting section which details problems with the notion of mind-(in)dependence. I thought it was worth sharing here. I thought the best part was this:
The claim “X is mind-(in)dependent” is certainly too coarse-grained to do serious work in capturing these powerful metaphors;
. . . .
Indeed, it is difficult to think of a serious version of moral success theory for which the moral facts depend in no way on mental activity. Yet to conclude that the distinction between minimal and robust realism cannot be upheld would be hasty.
I took out a large chunk so as not to kludge up the thread, but the section framed by those sentences is what I'm referring to.
Yet we quote these people. One envies the social structures that enabled these pieces of wisdom from Asia.
StreetlightFebruary 02, 2018 at 23:19#1491780 likes
Reply to Thorongil It's not CI bashing because not even the CI says that consciousness plays any role in QM. Also worth mentioning is that, strictly speaking, there is no 'the CI' either:
"While physicists, philosophers, historians, and others talk of the Copenhagen interpretation, in an important sense there are really many Copenhagen interpretations; or to put it another way there is no determinate or well-defined, coherent, and complete Copenhagen interpretation. The physicists who contributed to the Copenhagen interpretation displayed significant philosophical and interpretative differences in their specific contributions, so that what is taken to be the Copenhagen interpretation is actually a superposition of the disparate views of a group of physicists who include Bohr (complementarity), Heisenberg (uncertainty), Born (probability), and von Neumann (projection postulate), to name a few of the key players. Beller (1999) also argues that the Copenhagen interpretation is not a coherent framework but rather a compromise that was achieved among the key players." (Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway)
VagabondSpectreFebruary 02, 2018 at 23:29#1491800 likes
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 01:21#1491980 likes
The internet is dead. The internet remains dead. And we have killed it. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and truest of all that the world has yet owned has fed to death under our intellectual chives: who will wipe these crumbs off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What forums of atonement, what sacred memes shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this gluttony too great for us? Must we ourselves not become memes simply to appear worthy of it?
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 01:28#1492000 likes
Reply to Jon The video starts off intriguing, but about two minutes in the idea of a "life force" needed to explain life revealed to be the direction of the talk, and my inner skeptic instantly revolted.
A minute later she suggests that we cannot explain spiritual healing, and at that point I had to make the call that this is all some BS. I've looked for evidence of spiritual healing and there's none that satisfies my standards. It's a shame though, I would love it if one of gwenyth paltro's 80$ healing chakra crystals really could cure cancer. Alack, alas...
StreetlightFebruary 03, 2018 at 01:32#1492010 likes
Everytime you see white people, a yin-yang symbol, and an overemphasis on academic credentials (screaming: take me seriousllyyyy!!!) - with some warbly music to top it off - you know you're in for some mystical woo bullshit. Only thing it was missing was some colorful wavy lines emanating from some shitty charka diagram.
If by "talk about evolution" you mean "revolutionized our understanding of biological systems with a theory that has been scientifically validated in thousands of ways and to the medicinal benefit of billions", then yes.
Reply to VagabondSpectre
Over half of Americans have one form or another of a chronic degenerative disease.
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 01:54#1492140 likes
Reply to Jon I'm talking about the insight that the theory of evolution gives us in our ongoing attempt to decipher the goings on of biological systems, and how that new-found insight and resulting understanding can allow us to treat disease and injury in a variety of ways.
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 01:55#1492150 likes
Reply to Jon All the more need for medicine that actually works? Are you really a skeptic of evolution?
The question is whether or not reductionism has true value.
I'll take reductionism over "IT WERE MAGIC!" any day. The steady progress of science is good evidence of the practical validity of this choice. You say "failed miserably" but I say "drastically increased quality and longevity of life, including a reduction in child morality rates". Shall we begin appealing to statistics or do you have a magic-8-ball on hand?
Reply to VagabondSpectre
Ok.. that's your summation of whatever? What I'm talking about is a shift in paradigm in that the body works as a complete thing and not just individual parts. The shift is called integrative or functional medicine.
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 02:05#1492220 likes
Ok.. that's your summation of whatever? What I'm talking about is a shift in paradigm in that the body works as a complete thing and not just individual parts. The shift is called integrative or functional medicine.
"Functional medicine". Great name. Did the spiritual elders come up with that :)
If you want to talk about the complexity and interconnectedness of the various components of human bodies, we don't need a "paradigm shift", we just need more sophisticated modeling skills and better approaches to understanding and investigating the nature of truly complex systems and the emergent phenomenon that are inexorably governed by smaller and smaller parts in the reductionist sense which we observe within them.
I'll call it "complexity science" and stick with the idea that we can actually try to understand complex systems, rather than basically giving up calling it irreducible and appealing to some twisted trial/error-tradition hocum approach and call it "functional medicine".
Show me the trials of your scientifically unexplainable spiritual healing, please...
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 02:08#1492250 likes
Reply to Jon "lack of exercise or physical activity, poor nutrition, tobacco use, and drinking too much alcohol". Those are the listed causes of chronic illness. Where does the study say that scientifically supported approaches to clinical medicine cause all these diseases?
The scientific consensus has literally been that these things are unhealthy for about 50 years...
Reply to VagabondSpectre
I don't think you understand really what this is about though you're intent on arguing. Chronic degenerative disease generally results from a condition known as leaky gut (intestinal permeability) and it's through a cure for that condition that resolves a vast majority of our disease epidemic.
VagabondSpectreFebruary 03, 2018 at 02:14#1492290 likes
Reply to Jon
Your claim that gut-spilling is the cause of most of our diseases is far from established. If it is the case there's no reason we cant reductively get to the bottom of the mechanics of why.
Even if you're right you're not showing me anything like an "irreducible life force", you're actually arguing from materialism.
Your claim that gut-spilling is the cause of most of our diseases is far from established. If it is the case there's no reason we cant reductively get to the bottom of the mechanics of why.
The bottom is reached with what's called tight junctions. Conditions that open these junctions when they're not supposed to be are the problem. These include but aren't limited to glyphosate, gluten, WGA (wheat germ agglutinin,) lectins, toxins and dysbiosis.
Everytime you see white people, a yin-yang symbol, and an overemphasis on academic credentials...
You are spot on, but are there no black or yellow people who also pull off this sort of bovine manure spreading? We're all one species, after all, and bullshit is in all our genomes. We don't want to short-change our colored brother's and sister's capacities to generate nonsense.
Over half of Americans have one form or another of a chronic degenerative disease.
Actually, Jon, it's 100%. It's called life. It always ends in death. Bar none (If you want to make that your brand, it's –0).
Once an organism has achieved maximum physical condition it starts to deteriorate, just as a rock thrown up into the air rises until it can't rise an more, then it begins to fall back to earth. We all are going to die, no matter how you slice it, and it's a good thing. Otherwise we would have to put up with far more annoying people than we do now. There have been something like 100 billion people since we became people instead of primates, and most of these people have also been annoying, one way or another. It's what we do. It's what we are.
Once an organism has achieved maximum physical condition it starts to deteriorate, just as a rock thrown up into the air rises until it can't rise an more, then it begins to fall back to earth. We all are going to die, no matter how you slice it, and it's a good thing. Otherwise we would have to put up with far more annoying people than we do now. There have been something like 100 billion people since we became people instead of primates, and most of these people have also been annoying, one way or another. It's what we do. It's what we are.
That's not correct. Chronic degenerative disease is not aging. It's called illness. Aging has a lot to do with mitochondrial health and fraying of dna telomeres.
"Leaky gut syndrome" isn't a diagnosis taught in medical school. Instead, "leaky gut really means you’ve got a diagnosis that still needs to be made,” Kirby (Cleveland Clinic) says. “You hope that your doctor is a good-enough Sherlock Holmes, but sometimes it is very hard to make a diagnosis.”
That's not correct. Chronic degenerative disease is not aging. It's called illness. Aging has a lot to do with mitochondrial health and fraying of dna telomeres.
Aging in the absence of degenerative diseases has a lot to do with the mitochondria, true enough, but the degenerative diseases like
"You possess the spirit of Simone De Beauvoir! She was a powerful advocate of being your authentic self and rebelling against any force that tries to limit you. Society’s neglect and abuse of ‘the other’ is what prevents society from thriving. Rebelling against oppression of your authentic self is the way to true happiness."
The only issue I have is that 'the other' is actually society itself; 'the other' is actually 'the all'. Society eats itself, so long as 'the other' exists as a concept.
Alright, here's why I have trouble interacting with you: at first you say "Like maybe not being snappy and vicious?" in response to something I said to someone else, and that's a clear reference of when I told you to "fuck off". May I remind you, you then responded by calling me "a distasteful little wretch", and then told me to "go fornicate myself". Sounds snappy and vicious on your end as well.
Then you make a joke by bringing up Bitter Crank. As if your initial comment held no tension. This joke also distracts from the tension, which is your goal; that distraction is a leverage of power.
Of course your response will be that it was a joke, and I have high estrogen levels to respond in such a way; Clearly you were just joshing me.
When I read "Like maybe not being snappy and vicious?" I take that as a response to my character as expressed on this forum. I don't take it as a joke.
Not explicitly, that is true. But it could very well be that consciousness is what collapses the system.
The way I see it, the issue in QM is that at that level, the act of measurement affects the properties of that which is measured. At a macro scale, measurements are invariant with respect to the act of measurement - meaning that the effect of measuring something has negligible effects on what is measured. If to measure the position of a ball on a billiard table, you must hit it with another ball and then deduce it based on the effects of the collision, it is clear that the act of determining the position changes other properties (like momentum). It is part and parcel of the set of issues that emerges from the fact that physics always looks for immanent explanations - in terms of other things in the world. So, for example, time, in order to exist (ie be measureable), requires at minimum the existence of some physical objects. Without physical objects, time doesn't exist, since it cannot be measured. Measuring time simply means finding one object, and taking its rate of change in some aspect and comparing it with the rate of change of another object. Cooking dinner takes 10 minutes means that the clock seconds hand moves 600 times around while dinner is completed once. It's an immanent measurement.
I can't see what "consciousness" collapses the system means?
When I read "Like maybe not being snappy and vicious?" I take that as a response to my character as expressed on this forum. I don't take it as a joke.
A sense of humour should be a part of your mantra, but you unfortunately don't have one evidenced by getting all snappy. It just so happens that passive-aggressive people tend to find new ageism appealing and I tend to enjoy poking at passive-aggressive people.
I like you, which is saying something surely. Besides, I just spent the last three hours watching the best bollywood movie at the cinemas, filtered lens to smooth out the blemishes of the women, awkward sexual tension between two men having a bath together, glorified suicide ending, nothing can make me unhappy tonight!
I don't understand why the Hindu community were outraged with Padmaavat, makes absolutely no sense.
Besides, I just spent the last three hours watching the best bollywood movie at the cinemas, filtered lens to smooth out the blemishes of the women, awkward sexual tension between two men having a bath together, glorified suicide ending, nothing can make me unhappy tonight!
Hmm, I never watched Bollywood, but I had many Indian friends who did. I heard those Bollywood movies are usually very long, and often involve some kind of love story that has to do with marriage :P
I don't understand why the Hindu community were outraged with Padmaavat, makes absolutely no sense.
Hmmm 2018 movie, so definitely 0 chance that I would have seen it, granted that I watched probably 0 movies over the past 365 days :-O (yes, I do live under a rock :D )
Reply to Agustino I love cinema but in particular historical epics and the classics. Lawrence of Arabia is my all-time favourite, but give me some Yul Brynner and his fierce expression, some stunning Ava Gardner, Kurosawa movies, I have no idea why you would not want to watch them.
What the fork is with your umming and humming by the way? :P
Modern stoicism, more a fondness toward agency and our capacity to be virtuous depending on the state of our psychological health, but I still find myself returning back to Kanty Baby.
Lawrence of Arabia is my all-time favourite, but give me some Yul Brynner and his fierce expression, some stunning Ava Gardner, Kurosawa movies, I have no idea why you would not want to watch them.
Modern stoicism, more a fondness toward agency and our capacity to be virtuous depending on the state of our psychological health, but I still find myself returning back to Kanty Baby.
Yeah, probably because you have a better chance at success within all its ambiguity; whatever happened to your Aristotlean affections?
What is "success"? And anyway, my Aristotelian affections are still there, I was just saying that from the Stoics I prefer the Roman Stoics. Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius.
You will probably like it, granted that the protagonist is a woman who is struggling for authenticity ( >:) ), and the antagonist is also a woman who is struggling for absolute political control. And the protagonist doesn't know who her real parents are, etc. It's a very good series, you will get addicted to it >:)
What is "success"? And anyway, my Aristotelian affections are still there, I was just saying that from the Stoics I prefer the Roman Stoics. Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius.
Success in becoming a stoic sage; Aristotle understands that there are a number of external factors that play a role in forming that virtuous character and that the conditions for a "good life" free from the burden of adversity include both a state of mind and position in an external world; to deny your sexual needs, for instance, or in the absence of healthy living conditions.
I think you are attracted to the ancient ascetic appeal and I understand that because I have a fondness for Confucianism and concepts like 'honour' and 'righteousness' which I hold incredibly close my integrity and way of living, something that is lost in our contemporary environment. But, when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, Stoicism is not really satisfactory for me.
Comments (61561)
They already ran a retina scan which was plenty for them, no payment necessary. (Y)
?????? ????! dobroye utro!
Man, reading this just made me barf a little.
After a few seconds, I started reading it with the Shamwow guy voice.
Next thing you know there'll be an image of him twerking his coat hanger. Besides, I am the show-off here. I call this, Walking to Work in the Morning from my Eyes Collection. Taking things to a new creative height.
Yep, here I am. https://youtu.be/CJh59vZ8ccc
The only way to recover is to slap down a beat to it and show-off your rhythm.
Wires everywhere I know.
This one needs work, but in the meantime, an ambient record I'm finishing up:
https://soundcloud.com/sparrowbk/sets/imagination-deprivation/s-PjXad
You want me to sing a song to my dog? My dog doesn't have the best hearing. Or do you just want to hear my Australian accent?
The Buddha should suffice in the picture.
Whereof one can not speak things must be shown.
"How does a guy who weighs over 600 pounds have the balls to teach people about self-discipline."
What trickery is this?
This isn't about getting to know you or to hear what you're sure is an amazing accent. It's just that we want to know your dog is loved and properly sung to.
Gotta refrain from engaging in philosophical shit or high powered intellectual topics at night.
Did you read Shestov :P ?
I found him pandering after a while, sorry couldn't make it through the first page you linked. But, I definitely liked his parallel between philosophers who cannot cease their sadomasochistic pursuit of knowledge and wisdom by gorging of the fruit from the tree of knowledge.
Quietism it is then!
Yah, but why was your mind not quiet last night then?
Too much intellectual excitement and joy.
One has to moderate those mental masturbatory urges, ya know?
Yah of course... too much play with the dragon is not good! >:O
Oh, are you on another forum too? :-}
PhysicsForums. But I post the same stuff here as I post there, bar philosophical topics which aren't tolerated too much there. I say high powered because your required to present factual evidence in support of most claims made over there. So, it can take some time to read through studies or papers if you want to present a compelling case and get quality responses.
Not like I don't get that here; but, there's just a different methodology with science and philosophy.
Although I hate emojis with a deep, philosophical, esthetic, and linguistic fervor, I've decided I need to use them because people have trouble telling when I'm trying to be funny or ironic. Forgot to put one on my post. Just edited it.
Not sure what to say...
What is the emojis for "irony alert"? or "humor that sounds sarcastic, is pretty much, but isn't intended to cut too deeply"? "just too stupid to be allowed to live"? or "I don't like your emoji"? The pallet seems to be too limited.
>:o 8-) :-x >:) (N) >:O :-d
Nah. Drop them all. Make 'em work to decipher yer tone.
¿
Our first emoji-assisted sarcastic comment from T. Clark. You're doing great.
I personally like [Fe] or [?], but using them makes me feel pompous. The male symbol is also the alchemical symbol for iron. I don't hate [¿]. I like to put brackets around it so there's no mistaking it as something else. I'm willing to agree to use it if others are. If we use parentheses instead of brackets, (¿), it looks a little like Jimmy Durante, who nobody but you, me, and a few others here has ever heard of.
This is major, man! I'm shocked, frankly.
You've gone so long as that beneficent dove! >:O
Your body finally caught up to the size of your nuts, eh? :P j/k
I like the pic better than the dove. Gives you a cuddly-factor. If you stop arguing I'm sure TL will send you virtual hugs.
>:O >:O
Quoting Benkei
Will they be authentic virtual hugs? >:) >:O
Like 5 years or so... time for metamorphosis!
The dove becomes the hamster...from free-wheeling flight, to churning the endless proverbial hamster wheel... :-O
Squishy, airport-hug moment!
You fool! You dare challenge me to a duel? After spending all day in this wet summer rain, I decided to sing some Norah Jones and bumped into a Magpie.
I call this Kiss My Magpie Arse, from the Peacock Dreams Collection.
Love Magpies. Members of the crow family. In case you can't tell, I love crows. That reminds me, I need to add some birds to the "Beautiful Things" discussion.
I was surprised there were magpies in Australia. I looked it up. Australian magpies are not directly related to those found in the US or Europe. Still, you can see why immigrants from Europe would name them that.
Another good reason to like them.
What would be wrong with that?
Do you subscribe to scientism?
Wosret is doing okay. I talked to him last week and told him he was missed. (L) and while we are on the topic Mayor of Simpleton, Mongrel and LandLady are all doing well too (L)
How, indeed! If you can film your feet getting pedicured by fish and singing Achy Breaky Heart while pretending to be Sean Connery, I may be at risk. Even my singing a high-pitched whisper with the phone up to my face as I film a bird butt would seem all but pointless.
Hey, have fun. Are you stopping over on your way back to Bangkok?
Thanks, yes, just a few days here then Bkk.
Ahh I see. That happens to me sometimes, and it's the hardest thing to take back control over.
You had no shoes but you had a car? Yeah right... >:O
8-)
You Americans follow football? >:O
Is it true what they say, has the world become your ouster?
Yes, probably more than you do.
It's impossible - football (or soccer as you Americans say) isn't a traditional American sport ;)
Yeah, they watch too much hockey!! :-O
Why?
And there is the proof that Hanover is trailer trash. :s
Quoting Hanover
So she started on the first pull and thing got going. X-)
How dare you speak about the magpie like that.
This was a rather funny episode in the Netherlands to be honest but I do think it reflects a cultural difference. It's quite well-established that Trump lies repeatedly and to parliament as well. In the Netherlands the latter is a political death sentence, regardless of the topic. Ministers have been fired or had to quit over incorrect filing for travel reimbursements (like having your kids brought to school in the company car). It wasn't so much the behaviour itself but the fact they denied it when it did happen.
I think one of the detrimental effects of having only two-parties and a system where the winner takes all, there aren't enough checks and balances because the winner (and his party) don't need to fear any type of reprisal. Although having 20 political parties is probably going overboard, a more pluralistic system just might be what the US political system needs to regain integrity.
And even then, the Dutch system isn't that good either... just not as bad. :(
No, because I'm a tiny hamster and can easily dig hole under the Earth and hide my cute ears there... :-O
Something inspirational.
My favourite.
I don't intend this as criticism, just an expression of curiosity. I can understand why people in other countries are interested in the US's behavior in the world. We can be a bull in the china shop or even a turd in the swimming pool. Our economic behavior and performance has a major effect on other countries' economies. What I don't understand is why so many people around the world care about what goes on inside our borders - our popular culture, politics, social issues, celebrities. I love my country, but I don't pay as much attention as a lot of people from overseas do.
TV, film, and theater acting in other English-speaking countries - UK, Canada, Australia - are so consistently good compared to American. European food is so much better. As far as I can tell, in any small town in Belgium, France, or Germany, you can get a wonderful lunch sitting at a the same café or restaurant where local people are eating theirs. The ways people live and think in other countries are so interesting. German is such a wonderful language - faust hand schuh means "fist hand shoe" which means "mitten" for God's sake. Shadenfreude!
I live in one of the areas in the US where Europeans immigrated first. Around here, a house built in 1680 is a big deal. When I visited my brother in France in the 1980s, he lived in a normal, nothing special house in a small suburban town that was older than that. That's not even including Roman ruins, Celtic monuments, 30,000 year old cave paintings.
As I said, I love it here. The US has so much going on. Spending time in Alabama is like spending time in another country in some ways, and I don't mean that in an ironic or condescending way. The culture is different than Massachusetts, but the people are friendly and interesting. Too hot, and they have boiled peanuts, but hey, nowhere's perfect. As you say, we have nice leaves here in New England. I've never been overseas in fall, aren't there pretty leaves there too?
I'm interested in US politics due to its influence. It's external politics are influenced by the internal so I don't really see them separately.
The US to me is culturally interesting due to its capabilities to foster excellence in many areas and yet, from a Dutch perspective, fail in many social areas. Universal healthcare and socio-economic inequality being obvious differences. The peace of mind of not worrying about bills and your job when you become gravely ill is pretty much priceless. In other words, on average I think a lot of political choices are pretty stupid and that ties in with my political interests - how a society that nurtures so many leaders in different fields leave so many behind.
I agree. The amazing thing to me is that universal health care has been on the table since the early 1900s here, but it still hasn't made it. Truman in the 50s tried. We got Medicare, for people over 65, in the 60s with Johnson. Nixon tried in the 70s. Clinton tried in the 90s. Obama finally got something passed in 2009. It is still up in the air whether the zealots will be able to scuttle it.
The dying trees are wonderful here in Yorkshire too :) But I loved visiting New England in the fall (as you fellows say in autumn), two decades ago now. I've always been fascinated with the USA, my first political protest was against your Vietnam war, met my first American girlfriend in Brussels when I was 20, I visited Berkeley when I was 21...Now in much later life I've been married to an American for 10 years. We might have lived there, in Portland OR, had it not been for the health care issue which partly decided that we live over here in the UK - she's still slightly amazed that you can just roll up to the doctor's surgery and get treated for anything without anyone asking for your insurance details, even though we Brits are going frantic about how underfunded the damn health service is.
You take a large old oil drum, and I suppose you clean it out the best you can, then you put a propane torch under it, throw some raw peanuts in there, dump 1000 pounds of salt into the water, boil it for 3000 hours on the side of the road, and scoop them into individual sacks and sell them to motorists passing by. They sort of taste like slimy, salty peas or something. They definitely don't taste nutty. I do think they're better than roasted.
Alas, you showed up late for the party.
They have the texture of soggy cardboard and the taste of ... soggy peanuts.
That's because you're a tourist and are presumably spending money. Having lived in the South, do realize that Southern hospitality often times falls away if you're a Yank trying to settle down there.
I lived in southern Virginia on the NC border for three years while I was in high school. There's no doubt I did not fit in, but at that point in my life, I didn't really fit in anywhere. I spent 5 months in Tuscaloosa for work a few years ago. As I said, I liked the people and it was interesting. I wouldn't want to live there, I wouldn't fit in. I'm too pushy, noisy, opinionated, and liberal. And I talk really fast.
Unfortunately, I am not a major fan of barbecue, so there was also no haute cuisine in Tuscaloosa. There was a wonderful Chinese restaurant and a very good Indian one. And several very terrible "Meat and Three" restaurants - real southern food. @Hanover - do you have them in Georgia? Two Italian restaurants - one local and one Olive Garden. OG was the better of the two.
As I tell everyone, the most important thing about any job site is the restaurants nearby.
And, so you know, there is the south and there is Atlanta, which some consider a hell hole and others an oasis of civilization. I'm an Atlanta Jew, so I don't fit in so well in Appalachacholilala County quite so well.
At a Christmas party in rural Georgia recently, I saw this interesting conversation piece hanging on a dish towel:
Meat and three is a staple. Fried Chicken, fried okra, baked macaroni and cheese, and collard greens would be a fine example. 3000 calories for $6. Can't beat it. And don't forget the iced sweet tea.
Other choices - mashed potatoes made from powder, canned banana pudding, hamburg "steak" fried to the consistency of asphalt pavement with brown gelatinous "gravy". The one thing I always liked was cabbage - hard to get it in regular restaurants and hard to destroy. Oh, and every meal comes with dry, tasteless cornbread.
I didn't dislike the barbecue. There were some good places and I like brisket and ribs. I just don't like them enough to go there more than once or twice a month.
Actually, I've been a little unfair. The City Café in Northport, which is just north of the Black Warrior River from Tuscaloosa, is not bad. They open at 4 am for goodness sakes. Close at 2:30 pm. Downtown Northport has a bit of charm.
Thanks, experimenting with vid at the mo'.
And yet they didn't. :’(
I don't know if you've been up north, especially in the Boston area. There are colleges and high-tech industry everywhere. There aren't that many places left with real local personality. Even South Boston and the North End, bastions of Irish and Italian working class community, are full of what we used to call Yuppies.
There really isn't much "society" here, especially in the suburbs where I live. Educated technical people fit right in. There are places for artists.
There are five of us in the house and it is massive, but it was the guy who left that left the room in such a disgusting state, the room I have taken. We all get along really well - a house of professional board gamers - but it is really eye-opening about how much I need to adapt to the male presence. Like, not taking your fucked-up advice. And wearing pants.
(Y)
The best roomates ever. My roomie has bookshelves filled with well over 150 games. And he's a really swell fellow.
It's astounding
Time is fleeting
Madness takes it's toll...
Line
Fine, do it your way, but my way would have been so much more entertaining to hear about. Do you play stupid board games like Trouble, geeky ones like Risk or real ones like chess?
There's something happening here
what it is aint exactly clear
there's a man with a gun over there
tellin me I got to be 'ware
I think its time we
stop
Backgammon is my favourite. With money. And nuts. I once did a stretch of five hours with an overweight Russian guy who had a thick layer of puffy skin under his eyes that one would think he never slept. I play serious chess, but not everyone is into this I'm afraid.
I also love operation.
I do love me a fat Type 2 Russian backgammon player. I'd love to play one as long as he could maintain proper glucose levels.
"Serious" chess would imply a rating and tournament play. I, my distant friend, am a serious chess player.
https://lichess.org/i7wKnl4g
You're parents must have been proud. As they say, Jewish porn is 10% sex, 90% guilt. What would they think of you if they knew about all the things you did to Baden, especially making him get that nipple ring with a USA flag on it?
And by serious, I meant the game that can take ages and sometimes even stretch out for days. I can play - but not enjoy - a faster game but it usually involves strategies you can learn from any chess book. That is why I love BG. It is strategy in chance and you have to do it quickly, all of which I think requires more skill then chess, more real-world skill anyway.
https://lichess.org/i7wKnl4g >:O
Banno is pretty flippin good at online chess but I let him win as to not damage his ego. O:)
He is often up for an online match (Y)
Nope, that's wrong. BG is peasant game of luck, chess is the game of real skill :P
Totally agree. I brought one back from Turkey and it has this mother of pearl inlaid design with geometric patterns similar to ancient Islamic penrose architecture. It is one of those games I never get sick of playing.
First of all, the time controls for tournament play are fast if you think 3-4 hours per game is fast. Second, most games I play are online, where time controls are 5 days per move, which is like postal chess, just online (and they take months). Third, chess strategies are learnable, but not simple. Fourth, there are backgammon strategy books, considering it too is a strategy game. Try to outgeek me. Just try. I even enumerate things.
Lets do this. BG is actually quick-thinking strategy that aligns with chance and comparatively such strategy cannot actually be learned especially since two dice rolls has a probability of 1/36. To calculate such probabilities thinking forward with you and your opponents potential moves and to do this quickly and without the same preparedness and time as you can with chess is more real-world that requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence. Our everyday activities involve the same chance-situations that you don't have the time to adequately prepare a strategy for and you need to think quickly but in that spontaneity to be effective by ascertaining the number of possibilities how your reactions or decisions can effect you later and to your advantage. You cannot learn this from strategy books.
It is not to say that chess is somehow a lesser game only because my preference is for the former. That is why I can only play chess with some people as I have encountered many who want to play fast and I personally do not enjoy myself that way.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
It was because Banno slaughtered me several years ago that I decided to learn how to properly play ;)
Quoting Agustino
I agree about what you say relating to chess, but not BG. I'm really sleepy right now and I have work tommoz, but we'll play a game later.
Sadly, those actually exist.
Ditto
The variables in chess are nearly impossible to calculate, and, unless you're a savant or a chess computer, you're not going to resort to actual crunching out of possibilities beyond at best a few moves. For that reason, general rules and strategy become applicable. Two people reading the same strategy book would not be equal players, because the ability to strategize is dictated by overall skill level, which is both learned and inherent. The same holds true for backgammon, although there is an added third variable (as opposed to what the two players bring in chess) and that is the rolling of the dice. As tournament play makes clear, the same people tend to win over and over, indicating that they are relying upon something other than chance to win. What you would expect is that in any given game a novice could beat a champion, but over time, the champion would have a much higher winning percentage. This result arises because the dice rolling equalizes over time and the strategizing separates people out.
Here's a book for you: "Backgammon, Pure Strategy." https://www.amazon.com/Backgammon-Mr-Marc-Brockmann-Olsen/dp/1539640361
So, what's my point? It's that high level backgammon and high level chess both rely upon the same skill sets, but the enjoyment of backgammon is that weaker players can still win from time to time based upon the luck of the roll. There's no fun in predictably losing every time in chess. To the extent real life is more like backgammon, what you should expect is the same people to succeed long term, with the novice getting lucky rolls every now and then and the skilled getting set backs, but play long enough, and the wheat separates from the chaff. It would greatly surprise me if a high level chess player could not play high level backgammon, although the opposite wouldn't surprise me as much, largely because I wonder how (and I really don't know) rigorous the backgammon player personality is.
This goes along with the conservative viewpoint that if you redistributed the wealth across the board tomorrow, within a few years, the same people would have re-acquired that same wealth back other than those who had previously not acquired their wealth, but who luckily were born into it or otherwise acquired it without their own efforts.
Don't nip-pick.
So welfare is win-win (or win-draw?). The poor get to buy food and the rich get their taxes back.
Once is a "mistake"
Twice is a "coincidence"
Thrice is a "pattern"
Fourth is "intentional"
So I guess it's more win-win-win-win-draw.
I'll prove I'm psychic. Even though I don't know you, I'll provide directions to where you live:
East on the Peachtree Expressway
Turn south on the Peachtree Throughway
Get off at the exit for Peachtree Blvd.
Go two lights and turn left on Peachtree St.
Go 1.25 miles to the statue of Robert E. Lee and take a right onto Peachtree Road.
Then 7 lights and right on Peachtree Lane
A quarter mile down and left on Peachtree Circle
Third house on the left. The one with peach trees in the yard.
I always feel inferior discussing things with you. Chess, astrophysics, law, an ambition for new learning, an incredible reading list, compassion, drive, vision. Babies love you. You are a true renaissance woman.
And here, all I have is a clear vision of the true nature of ultimate reality.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/we-still-dont-really-know-how-play-ancient-roman-board-game-180967778/
We probably can't play at that time unless we do it on a weekend (or you stay up till very late ;) )
That's not true. BG is a linear game, pieces only move one way, they cannot move backwards. Chess is a much more complex game, with different piece types, which have different values, and which can move in completely different ways. Chess is orders of magnitude more complex than BG.
https://thegammonpress.com/comparing-games-skill-chance/
Furthermore, you say BG requires more "real-world" skill than chess because there's a higher element of chance. I think that real-world skill is found in managing complexity, and chess has a great deal more of it. "Chance" is really irrelevant, because what chance stands for is inability to predict - in chess, you have the same inability to predict very long-run consequences of moves. Sure, theoretically, it's all mathematical, but chess still has not been solved, even with the most powerful computers we have to date. So the underlying assumption that unpredictability originates from chance is wrong. Unpredictability can equally originate from too much complexity.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't see how BG requires a high degree of spatial and logical intelligence. At any one point, the potential moves you have in BG are fewer than in chess (that's one), and BG is entirely linear (pieces move only in one direction).
Quoting TimeLine
Well, I would say for most things in the everyday, you do have time to prepare a strategy. It's very rare that you don't have time to prepare a strategy, and neither can you buy time to prepare. At least in the business world, for the most part this seems to be so. For example, many times people want to sign contracts after a discussion and going over the contract, but I always request more time to ponder it on my own. So it's not a big deal - if anything, there is often too much time.
Quoting Hanover
This is not very true I think. A game where a novice can beat a world champion is a game of pure luck, basically where the participant cannot take any decisions that can impact the result. In BG, a participant can take decisions, but those decisions are a lot fewer, and a lot more limited than the ones available in chess.
Quoting Hanover
Doubtful. For that to be the case, those previously wealthy people would need to retain the skills and practical knowledge they've gathered, including their connections - and how did they gather those things? By already being wealthy for the most part. Once you were wealthy at one time, even if you lose it, it's easier to make it back again (provided you have the motivation), since you have a practical understanding of the process - you know how to do it.
If we did a complete reset (hypothetically) and returned everyone to the same starting capital, and the same knowledge, we would surely have a group who would be interested in becoming wealthy, and some people from that group will indeed form most of the wealthy. But who exactly from amongst them will largely be a matter of luck.
Take someone like Warren Buffett - when software was just getting started, he lacked the knowledge necessary, that others (like Bill Gates) already had. WB had virtually no chance to become the richest man in the world off this new industry. Why did Bill Gates have a much better chance? He was born in the right place, he had access to computers and programming early on, he had the right connections/team, and he was acting at the right time. That's not his merit - what is his merit is that he, unlike many other kids (but still relatively few) who had access that early to computers decided to pursue it.
But suppose you are a kid born in an African village in the middle of Congo! Good luck becoming the richest man in the world in the day of software. You may become rich there in your village, relative to the other people surrounding you, if the social structure permits it. But that's it.
So the society you find yourself in is very important. It's not just individual merit. If you take Bill Gates and you put him in Communist Russia, he would not have become Bill Gates.
I hate the super fast one, I like the standard 30mins or so games. But I also hate the slow ones, where moves take days - that is so annoying.
I can usually play around this time -2hours or +1hr if you let me know in advance.
Does China need more people? The question more relevant to Trump supporters is why is it that capital and jobs want to head the other way.
Shitholes. It's all relative to a 1000 year view for the strategically minded. A Chinese political scientist summed it up for me. China is run by engineers, the US by lawyers. The results will be what you would expect in the long run. :)
Didn't anyone reply? Stop children what's that sound, everybody look what's goin down...
If you study Chinese history in more detail, and study the schemes and plots that existed in say, the Three Kingdoms period, or the Warring States period, you will see that the Chinese mind far outweighs what you find in, for example, in the Peloponnesian War, or with Tayllerand, or Cardinal Richelieu, etc.
The success of a country is more dependent on a stable government than a hard working and capable populace. It's sort of like asking which is more important, the workers on the assembly line or the managers in the office. It's not that either are unimportant, but the success of a company or a country will depend on utilization and management of resources (human or otherwise) to a greater degree than simply having those resources at your disposal.
If you're asking if I wanted engineers to run America, I think not. I've not seen where engineers have taken a significant leadership role in the US, and it's not because they've been limited from that endeavor. That personality doesn't necessarily lend itself to leadership. I'd say the same thing for the academic personality that finds greater comfort in evaluation and critique than in leadership.
I remember watching Buffalo Springfield singing this on the Smothers Brothers Show in 1968.
So you favour the stability of the swamp over the instability that Trump promised? Interesting.
Quoting Hanover
Somehow I don't think you are up to date with how a financialised economy operates. China is leveraging off the US right now. It seems you don't get it.
The US of course made a sound investment in being "the world's policeman" for a while. That paid off in terms of new markets for US goods and access to underpriced world resources.
But then having a "hard working and capable populace" was where the US let the ball drop. Sure, that would still be the case if it was still a good old smokestack factory economy. But due to its weak political planning, it didn't really bring its people along with it on during its modernisation. It imported the PhDs to do the new economy stuff, and the illegals willing to work for less than a minimum wage.
Quoting Hanover
I dunno. Moving around the world, I keep finding those with engineering training actually running things. But these days, yes, we are often talking financial engineering when it comes to successful political leaders.
Look at Trump. A failed real estate investor - returns on inherited wealth failing to out-perform government bonds despite all the chicanery - pretending to be a financial engineering genius.
But anyway, if your arguments are going to be as trite as engineers don't have leadership genes, no point pretending anything you say could be taken as serious.
From HBR...
While I'm at it, there was this good Economist article on US lawyers vs Chinese engineers...
...but back to your fact-free opinions. I wandered into the shoutbox by mistake.
Everyone to their Action Station!
But they eat with chopsticks, which is far less efficient than a knife and fork. So even if they're great at strategy, they're still eating dinner whilst the rest of us getting on with stuff.
Maybe I'm just terrible with them, even with all that practice.
Yes, noodles with a fork... No. I'm going to say it again btw the food here in Malaysia is amazing. Even at the airport. (Gotta go today).
I grew up in Malaysia and I'll say with only minimal bias that I legit think that country has the best food in the world :D
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, one of the reasons why I'd find it hard to live elsewhere - our absolutely awesome selection of international food.
My sister gets back from 6 months in China tomorrow, and I expect that I'll be eating nothing but Western food at home for at least the next two weeks as a result, lol.
I'm kind of permanently like that with fruit. I get this weird, weak in the knees sensation where I hold my breath for a few seconds in a gasp when I see that mangoes are on special at Coles and I pretend to be all cool when I am screaming with joy inside.
So, BBQs, Lasagnas, and Salads for the next two weeks, eh? You'll be right (Y)
Wow, a full-blown orgasm from mangoes. Hanover knows what to feed you now.
I like monopoly too. Want to write an exegesis about it?
Is that your idea of a full-blown orgasm? My goodness, even in my maiden state, I pity you.
I have sinned forgive me.
:s of course we have time to think through strategies... I really don't understand what you're talking about. What sort of situations do you have in mind when we don't have time to think through strategies? Can you give some examples?
From my experience, it's generally the exact opposite. Engineers are able to lead because they are pragmatic, they understand how different components (whether social or parts of a system, etc.) fit together, and they understand long-term consequences very well. The more "social" professions, such as lawyers, accountants, etc. are good politically, but not in terms of sheer effectiveness & efficiency.
Quoting Hanover
So then, in your opinion, it's access to (or control over) capital that makes one a leader?
Quoting apokrisis
He's not a failed real estate investor - he did not lose the money all the while actively playing it. That is a feat in-itself, granted that most RE investors who actively play their money lose.
I am so with you on that.
They were tart-sweet, just superb, and my tree pretty much feed a whole block of neighbors.
You've got to motivate and get people to listen to you. I'm not pigeon holing all engineers as Asperger like, so there may be some that fit the bill. What I am saying is that the technical skills they possess are a different skill set, but I'd agree that if they can create a feeling of competency from their expertise, they can use it to assert authority or persuasion, but that does take a certain amount of social aptitude. That someone has mastered the assembly line with great effectiveness and efficiency does not mean he can run the assembly line. Maybe he can, but he might find that he can't if placed in that position.Quoting Agustino
It will make you a leader simply by virtue of the position. Whether you're a good leader once you've inserted yourself in that position is another matter. That is, if I own the company, people will listen to me because I have dictator like control. Leading by decree is the worst form of leadership. If I worked in a company that advanced leaders based upon their management skills, the managers would probably be better suited because they would have proved myself as opposed to having just bought the position. Management degrees exist for a purpose. In the end though, if you can't manage your people and your business, you'll fail, so many entrepreneurs find their great ideas limited by their inability to build beyond themselves. Of course, a really really great idea might fly on its own merit just through brute force.
What I've seen in the corporate world is that leaders are promoted based upon their relationships with other leaders, but leaders are then offered minimal true leadership authority, watering it down with all sorts of rules and procedures so that hiring and firing must go through a system. What you end up with really isn't leadership at all, but managers are really corporate auditors monitoring objective performance criteria and documenting deficiencies that might one day offer enough justification to alter the employee's status. That does create a stable system, but it can be so conservative in nature that reacting to change will be a challenge. IAll the real leaders are at the top of the chain, and their decisions alone will affect the whole system. You have to hope they don't suck. They often do, with the hordes below them knowing it, watching it, but entirely incapable of stopping it. Those who see it leave, creating an ever growing pool of mediocrity. Anyway, just an observation.
Misspell "lemonade" on your sign. People will think it's cute and you'll sell more.
Management and leadership are different things. Leaders inspire others, managers facilitate others. Leadership is about building trust and going the extra mile. People feel safe around leaders. A particular feature I've found striking in people who I think make good leaders, is the ability to think of others where most people think about themselves (particulary in stressful situations). People don't have to be in a decision making position to be leaders. People will go the extra mile for a leader, because they know he'd do it too.
You are right, but do you consider the rules of social interaction & motivation to be any different than the rules of engineering? The reason I'm asking you this is because engineering, by its very nature, is pragmatic, and will look for whatever solution gets the result desired. Engineering is the opposite of ideology - an engineer only uses theories, etc. so long as they yield results. Many times, engineers will fall back on heuristics when theories are stretched to their limits.
Quoting Hanover
What do you take the difference between an engineer and a scientist to be? The reason I'm asking is that typically it's the scientist that we see as "Asperger" like and unable to interact socially. Of course those are just cultural images, there can be differences in actual people.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, that part of an engineer's training is not relevant to leadership. But that's not all that an engineer learns - indeed, if that was all an engineer learned, then he would be a mere technician. Many engineers do study management - I did have to take several management courses at university for civil engineering. I didn't find them particularly useful, but management and social relations were seen as essential for success as a civil engineer, and this point was very heavily driven into us.
The more important aspects that you learn in engineering is an attitude and an approach to problem-solving. You also learn how to take decisions (decisions that could lead to people dying in the case of civil engineering) that incorporate uncertainty into them and hedge against risks (safety factors, etc.). You learn how to go about quantifying that uncertainty, and being able to deal with it rationally. I personally found this approach to be essential for my work as self-employed and entrepreneurship. I would certainly have been poorer without having learned this.
Quoting Hanover
When the assembly line is designed though, engineers do have to take into account how workers will have to interact with it, which processes are automated and which are not, how errors will be handled both by the software and by human agents, etc. For example, when I got certified to be able to deal with installations, industrial elevators, pressurised containers, etc. it was an essential part of the course and exam to be aware and take into consideration how people will interact with them, what people must be instructed to do in case of an accident, etc.
Quoting Hanover
People from within your company will listen to you, however, in all likelihood your most important interactions will be with people from outside the company (clients, suppliers, etc.) - they will not necessarily listen to you (depends on what sort of power you have over them - if you account for 30% of the monthly volume of a supplier, then he will certainly listen to you). In fact, this is something that is very difficult, and a lot of it depends on who exactly you're interacting with, and local social conditions. For example, recently, I've been looking for a new accountant, and I sent an email to 300 local accountants. I sent multiple versions too, from different email addresses - I got exactly 0 responses. Why? Because people here are (1) slow, and (2) they distrust email (just a prevailing cultural attitude). So I had to individually call some of them, which takes a lot longer than just writing up a few emails to get a quote. Such social conditions can be highly restrictive to what's possible.
Quoting Hanover
I'm not so sure about this - I don't think management as such is a profession, but it's my own personal view. I think managers certainly want us to think they are in the possession of a "science", something they can use to influence people (regardless of their will), etc.
Quoting Hanover
That's true, and many entrepreneurs also find their operations limited by their lack of understanding of technical matters with regards to their industry. Engineering does give you this attention to detail, and capacity to learn and understand logistical aspects - and logistics includes people, as well as other resources. I've met with business people who were trained in something other than engineering - like marketing, business administration, etc. and one of the things I remarked was that they struggled to articulate certain things about their business since they did not understand certain aspects of their logistics. And this does provide a significant limitation - it leads to not being aware of all the possibilities and courses of action available to you.
Quoting Hanover
I agree with this, I faced a recent issue with a bank about this. And effectively everyone you get to blames the "procedures" for the problems, but of course nothing changes. But then, if you think about it, there is no other way to run a very big organisation (unless you have a micro-managing "dictator" who knows everything that is happening - that would typically be the owner). But in cases where there isn't one owner, how will you - as the shareholders - ensure that the people running your company do not take decisions that will benefit themselves and their own influence? Afterall, you could have cliques forming through the company, who end up pushing their own interests, even at the expense of the company shareholders - afterall, they don't really care about the company, they don't own it. So how can you stop that? You need to limit their influence through procedures & other internal regulations & bureaucracy. That's why in third world countries which are very corrupt, these procedures tend to be a living hell. But I think it's more profitable for shareholders this way, than to allow corruption to run rampant through the company.
That's what I was taught in University too - I personally don't pay much attention to it. I don't think there is any such thing as a leader - all that happens is that we have a series of jobs that need to get done. The leader is the one who gets the job (and by that I mean the entire job) done. And it doesn't matter if this is by delegating it to others, outsourcing it, doing it him/herself, etc.
I agree with what you've said here, although I think you're describing a good leader. There are many bad leaders, but they're leaders nonetheless simply because they've been placed in the front of the line and everyone has to follow them. A corporate manager once pointed out to me that people don't work for companies. They work for managers. It was ironic because he was a horrible manager and leader, but what he said was true. I worked for a Fortune 15 company for 19 years under one manager and only a few months later I left after she got promoted. It was truly like working for a different company under the new manager. And what you said is true, she actually cared about her employees, not in just a remembering my kids' names and what sports they played sort of a way, but in a "are you ok" sort of way. Being a good person will never hurt you . As I ask young lawyers, why do you think being a dick is going to work in the courtroom when it doesn't work anywhere else in the world? Yes, and I know I probably sometimes need to take my own advice from time to time.
>:O lol! It really depends. I've seen (or heard about) quite a few lawyers being absolutely terrible in terms of behaviour, but they can get away with it due to their status. If you have a certain social position and reputation, it kind of insulates you from the bad effects. But yes, if you don't have that privileged position, you simply cannot afford to be rude.
Am I joking when I think there is a difference between belief and thinking , Dah no.
You can believe without thinking.
You can think about something without having to believe it.
Is a leader nobody wants to follow still a leader? I'm tempted to say no.
Isn't Kim Jong-un a leader? I think I'm right in the literal sense for sure, else the phrase "despised leader" would be self-contradictory. If you asked if a despised leader had leadership skills, I think you could, in a non-self contradictory way, claim he doesn't. So, a leader can lack any leadership skills, which is what I meant when I said you were describing bad leaders, as opposed to non-leaders. A leader can become a leader by virtue of ownership of resources, anointment, birthright, coup, might, electoral process, charisma, intellect, mystique, or whatever else, and none of those methods of becoming a leader assure any leadership skills. Ideally, we'd hope that leadership positions are gained through merit, but that's not always the case.
The interesting question really is what are effective leadership skills.
My father lived in Melbourne for three years in the 90s. I was surprised when he told me how good the food is there and how seriously Australians take it. I think I'd always assumed that Australian attitudes and practices would be like the British.
Well, I have a really busy job and work with numerous stakeholders, travelling across the state and country regularly. All of February, for instance, I will be incredibly busy because school starts here after the summer holidays. I have to communicate to senior managers, children, teachers, just so many various stakeholders in order to manage this particular program. Can you imagine just how many encounters I experience each day?
I also don't have a car and so I am catching transportation everywhere or using the company car when I need to travel further out, and encounter more people on transport, chance issues that I have to regularly face like technical problems, physical like my right foot that sometimes hurt after I injured it in the car accident, then further still I have bills to pay, rent, groceries etc.
These experiences can make it difficult to have the time to think ahead and to plan any such encounters. I see what you mean, for instance, my strategy is about self-management and so I know how to decompress from all that usually by watching movies, chatting on here or going on hikes. I am lucky because I absolutely love my job and find it very rewarding, my colleagues that I work with are so wonderful, my close friends actually make me feel great. So, I have never been happier. Hence why I love backgammon. I love my life right now.
So there's plenty of people out there that are in leadership roles that I don't acknowledge as such. Not that that makes a difference but it does affect my behaviour towards them and I've openly undermined authority of people who aren't leaders by standing up for the people affected by their shitty decisions. I don't stand up to (good) leaders even if I may disagree because I trust them.
Edit: also, I'm Dutch, which makes me pretty anti-authoritarian to begin with. It's a cultural thing.
Yeah, but most of those encounters, 80% probably, are not very important. I find it hard to believe that you have your day littered with super important meetings, negotiations, etc. They do not need any strategizing, it is sufficient to react on the moment - and if you do need more time, you can find a way to buy some time for yourself, it's not very difficult. For the other 20%, which are really important, you probably do have time to strategise.
Quoting TimeLine
Why do these issues require strategizing to deal with in your opinion? They are relatively insignificant, no strategy is needed. For example, I don't drive, so sometimes I take public transport and other times I just have to take a cab - interactions with cab driver are a non-issue for me, I don't strategise. I deal with it in the moment, because nothing in that interaction has any significant consequences for the future. But a negotiation on terms and conditions of a contract for an important service I need - like accounting right now - takes a great deal more of time to prepare and strategize so that I get a good deal for meself since I'll be stuck with it for quite a bit.
In a comparative analogy, 80% of the moves you make in BG are not very important either, but how these moves are made lead to either winning or losing. I manage a project throughout the school year, which is to get hundreds of kids reading, build great working relationships and friendships, and get rewarded for that 80% so long as the trajectory is intended to try and win. Those reactions may not be consequential at that given moment, but each reaction has an effect - whether on you or on other aspects to this trajectory - that could challenge your overall win. Your focus in all the speed, chance, movement is imperative and without which you risk losing.
I don't know about you, but when I get treated badly I shut down and get confused and it is my goal to be happy and so I am learning how to distance myself from that possibility. I remember you telling me about a sexist cab driver; so, imagine I jump in a taxi and this driver starts saying all sorts and though the interaction may not have any significant consequence to me that moment - as in I may not be in danger - it affects me, that could lead to another error and then another. Your strategy to negotiate the terms and conditions of a contract could be affected by a number of factors that you may think are irrelevant or that your attention is not drawn to; to write out that contract is Chess, but the process of getting someone to sign it is both strategy and chance.
I am not upset at your comments made to me. I am upset about the comments made against fruit. I have had enough of all the fruitarian discrimination going on around here that now I am in negotiations to add to the following site guidelines:
Racists, homophobes, sexists, Nazi sympathisers, fruit-provocateurs: We don't consider your views worthy of debate, and you'll be banned for espousing them.
Viva la apples!
How about cake?
The greatest of blasphemies.
Yes. And if it is my cake, it is usually damned delicious.
Cakes? And traits of cakes, meaning sweetness, cakeness, and such matters concerning cake'ness.
Yes.
On a side note, some recipes of mine including the guinness mud cake, neapolitan gåsebryst, and an open wedding cake with caramelised fig that I made for a friend have been published. You should see my savoury stuff - vegetarian shepherds pie is the bomb - and breads like salmon and camembert brioche.
I was going to say that people get fat with my sweetness, but Hanover looms with potential.
Are you sure your cookbook hasn't been run through a gibberish generator?
Salmon & camembert brioche must be some sort of abomination.
You became Princess Jasmine.
I disagree. Like in chess, every move matters in BG, and mistakes add up. Life is not like that, since there are no clear boundaries and regulations as in BG - in other words, there are a lot more "correct" moves, and mistakes don't always add up since life isn't formed of a single goal like BG or chess.
Quoting TimeLine
I disagree - over time I've stopped sweating the small stuff.
Quoting TimeLine
Hmmm... I just tend to ignore it nowadays, and focus on things I can control. I'm often treated badly by people who I don't have direct power over in business, but I don't react to it except in indirect ways, because reacting directly usually leads to less than optimal solutions.
Quoting TimeLine
No, all of it is chess. You only write it after you've already negotiated and agreed on the terms. And the contract is quite irrelevant, what's more important are the terms themselves. It's the structure of the terms that prevents you from being cheated many times, not the legally binding agreement itself. And there are a whole array of different tactics to use depending on who you're dealing with, and what actions they take.
Savoury brioche hater! Anyway, this coming from a man who despises pasta has little effect.
I worshipped her when I was young.
We do. Our most popular shows are cooking programs. But, I get to go home early today because it is too hot. I call this View from my Office from my Happy Weekend Collection. Have an awesome weekend everyone!
This is view of my reality right now. Not bad, not bad at all.
Did someone say my name? They did! They did!
I'm just listening in to find out what makes the best life analogy: chess or backgammon (or "BG" as the hipsters say). I'm thinking it's actually Gnip Gnop or Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Let's talk about something else. I like bread. It's better than fruit or vegetables. I KNOW this will get heated, so I'm all ready to mod the living shit out of what I KNOW comes next.
Jewish Rye. Best. Bread. Ever. Deal with it goyim. Deal with it.
I see her in a smokey room smell of wine and cheap perfume for a smile they can share the night
I challenge you on that claim with a swirled rye and raise you a home made Horshradish that will cure anything that ails you.
Close but no cigar
Wrong. A kosher pickle is the universal cure-all.
Mmhmm that is the same bs story the Rabbi told me and I said.the warm, limp, Kosher pickle should be.wrapped in barbed wire and put up on the cross to be crucified by the good Catholics of this world and then he is going to need to go to confession and ask the Father for forgiveness for continuing this bs story. Sorry I had to be the one to tell you but I know you will find comfort in knowing the truth and as they say, the truth shall set you free. Free to consume and heal.from a good marble rye with a good dose of Horesradish. You can thank me for being considerate and looking out for what is bs in life.
That salmon camembert muffin thing of yours proves you have perverse taste, and this quote proves you can't read. I said I loathed pasta salad -- especially pasta salad served cold on salmon camembert brioche. Gag me with a spoon.
How rude. Clearly you are a man spoon and your head made out of metal if you think a brioche is a muffin. Have you never had baked camembert? Having that soft cheese through the buttery bread is to die for, you mad ol' fool.
*flicks her fettuccine hair.
Yes, it is.
[Unreal...is the anxiety unreal? Or is real life unreal? I want to believe that the anxiety is unreal.]
The anxiety is unreal.
You know,
Solution: stop reading Schopenhauer.
What does that mean?
His sentiment lingers on like a stench in the mind.
The worry is that I have no desire for a girl. My peace of mind expresses itself in misogynistic and Schopenhaurian narcissism.
Why?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yeah, same, but you're young. Lots of things to do in life, apart from girl stuff. If I had a girlfriend now, she would break up with me in a few weeks, since I wouldn't give her sufficient time :P lol.
I forgot you Aussies are upside down, and it's summer over there...
Because Schopenhauer is depressing, isolating, alienating, and a narcissistic philosophy. Strangely enough, though, Schopenhauer quells angst and anxiety with the poison of his defeatist and pessimistic philosophy. I used to find solace in that; but, for how long can one remain alienated, isolated, and depressed?
It's all very anxiety inducing.
How do we overcome unreal anxiety?
My anxiety...?
Love. There is nothing greater.
It's not anxiety based on a specific day.
By embracing it, and not trying to dissociate from the feeling through trivial philosophical rationalizations. As Spinoza might say, by embracing the affective element of one's persona.
Sounds like Spinoza is just another trivial philosophical rationalization, tho?..
Yes; but, the anxiety is unreal.
How do you articulate anxiety objectively?
Quoting TimeLine
What are things for what they are?
Yes; but, there's truth in suffering and anxiety. The attachment to material things is the root of all suffering as the Buddhists and their neighbors, the Stoics, would say.
So it doesn't exist?
Not materially, no.
Agreed, but that doesn't help.
Help in terms of relinquishing the source of the anxiety?
That, and the anxiety itself, yes.
Whatever it may be, and only you would know, these feelings are you talking to you, but without words that make sense. Hence why you would need to articulate them objectively, bring it to conscious level and then the anxiety will go away. That is, put words to the feelings and speak it for what it is.
Yes, it is true that in some regards Schopenhauer is narcissistic.
Quoting Posty McPostface
Why is that strange? Telling you that there's nothing you can do, and so you have no responsibility, calms anxiety. We're anxious about responsibility and the possibility of failing to meet it, but there is a sort of nihilism that acts as calming of conscious anxiety.
Quoting Noble Dust
Why are you anxious? What do you find threatening?
Quoting TimeLine
That depends on your goals & place in life.
Quoting TimeLine
Who said anything about money? Well sure, they do want that, but depending on one's goals, that may be a problem, and not a solution. Love takes time, and when you're building a business you have no such time. I took no holidays for the past 2 years, this year just Christmas holiday, and that's cause things are more settled now, and I gained a sort of mastery that allows me to move through things more easily.
Then one must constantly be aware of what they are desirous over or about.
There is nothing wrong with having a dominating mother. One can live happily, although less selfishly, with one.
So one articulates anxiety objectively by bringing anxiety to a conscious level, that is, put words to the feelings and speak it for what it is? So speaking anxiety out loud means objective?
:-}
Quoting TimeLine
So, say, when I feel anxious about going into a negotiation, that's because my feelings are telling me that I do not agree with something? :s
The attachments are much more than materialism, they are experiences we are not aware of consciously, epistemic, the patterns of our very thoughts and how we interpret ourselves and the external world. Most of this occurs during childhood and most of what we understand is limited, so we form habits that incorrectly perceive the world around us. We need to change that when we have the cognitive capacity to, to transcend that, but the only problem is that we don't do this because we simply don't realise or understand what we are doing.
Other philosophies like Buddhists or Stoics are merely showing us a different route that help mirror our flaws. But, essentially, we are not growing or becoming better, we are just merely rearranging our prejudices.
Wouldn't you like to know, doc? :P
Idiot.
How can you be anxious if you don't find anything threatening? You might have an uneasy feeling, but surely there must be instances when you perceive things (or people) as threatening to you or your goals that makes you feel anxious.
No, I'm actually asking you honestly.
So if realizing anxiety is physically unreal isn't helpful in terms of relinquishing the source of the anxiety as well as the anxiety itself, then "one must constantly be aware of what they are desirous over or about?"
You have anxiety because you don't know what it is, not that you know what it is. That is why you have it. It is not speaking 'out loud' but actually speaking correctly for why you have it, the reasons for it. Most people don't, they go round in circles avoiding the actuality as though they enjoy the self-pity.
You are speaking about being nervous. Not having anxiety.
Of course. There are things I find threatening in life.
They both produce similar symptoms, with just a difference of intensity for the most part.
Quoting Noble Dust
What are they?
Well, we can't be aware of all our emotions or anxious elements at once. There are means for compensating for that. Defence mechanisms are one example, depression is another if the feeling is persistent. So, the key is a clear conscious or stable mind in regards to over what is illustrious over, be it money, prestige, recognition, etc.
Leading me to believe, that we all ought to practice ethics for the sake of a calm and clear mind.
There is a lot wrong with a dominating mother. Your happiness is a happiness based only on pleasing her - and ultimately others - and not what you actually want. There is nothing wrong with wanting something for you, loving yourself and wanting to be happy.
No, I know what anxiety is.
Quoting TimeLine
You said "out loud". Just going with your wording.
I know you know what it is. Do you know why you have it? If so, why all this questioning, or do you simply like the attention?
A few of them that I'm comfortable sharing are social anxiety from being home-schooled and generally shut off from society (thus feeling like an observer watching society happen, not a participant), as well as anxiety about career.
That professes an attitude of complacency and passivity to various things other people do. One must be concerned about humanity if one is ethical?
A domineering mother also loves their offspring as must as a caring or any other type of mother. It's just expressed in a different manner.
Fair, but I was really just curious how you were using "unreal", as a maker of poetic words myself. I took it at first to mean "the anxiety is unreal"; the anxiety is crazy, insane, too much. And then interpreted it as meaning, literally, unreal. Maybe that was just my mistake.
The thing is that it can be both depending on the state of mind we're talking about.
Agreed.
Interesting, there's another person who is home-schooled on these boards :P (not me).
How does this anxiety manifest itself? What do you feel or think if you're, say, out and about with a group of people?
Quoting Posty McPostface
Yes, to the degree that one can affect things for the better. Some things are outside of our control.
I'm posting here to help figure out why I have it. Do you like the attention of being a savior?
No, a domineering mother doesn't know how to love and the child is unfortunately caught in this trap where guilt - such as how much sacrifices she has made for you - control and manipulate your every thought, sometimes even when you are not aware of it. Then, you are in a relationship with someone that you are not happy with only because your mother approves, for instance, and you live a life of misery thinking you are doing the right thing, when really you are subjectively obeying and doing the right thing by her.
You need to cut the umbilical cord.
(Y) true. I was drawn to the double meaning of the word, honestly. But I agree.
Apologies, I was being ungenerous. Your post articulated it afterwards.
Pretty sure anonymous66 has publicly stated that they were home-schooled.
Quoting Agustino
I feel like I'm watching life happen within a globe, and I'm outside the globe.
Then the issue seems to be what state of mind is the right one to be in and how to maintain such a state of mind. Again, the Buddhists and Stoics have the answer.
I'm thinking of someone else :P
Quoting Noble Dust
Okay but practically, what do you feel? Do you feel ignored by the group of people? Do you feel like you can't have the interactions you want with them?
Apology accepted, thanks for that.
Yes, but is my love for my domineering mother any less worthy than for any other type of mother? It is still love.
Yeah, exactly, so you should put down the Schopenhauer :P
Why not the Christian mystics or the Kabbalists?
But, his derivative of Buddhism is quite appealing to a Westerner, no?
As long as ethics and right conduct is the main concern, I have no prejudice or discriminate between nominalist names.
I've come to see it in somewhat positive terms, however, as precipitating that transformative "turning around of the soul" that the ancients apparently associated with the philosophical life.
I think H actually appropriated this insight from Kierkegaard without giving him proper credit. Maybe even Augustine.
In my opinion, becuase you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path. I can hardly be a businessman and a Christian mystic in the true sense of the word at one and the same time. So those paths seem to me to be more individualistic, and less social, and for me personally, I don't think that's the right thing. I want to be in society, and contribute.
Who? You can't leave us clueless homeschoolers in the dark.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, that's the practical interpretation of my analogy.
To be fair, I'm just now delving into different forms of mysticism. But it's clear to me so far that not all playing fields are equal, even if there is a unity of method, sometimes, or a unity of goal other times.
I can't say, since they obviously haven't stated it publicly. I don't share what people tell me privately unless I have their accord.
Quoting Noble Dust
Okay so then if you feel ignored, and you feel you can't interact with them, all that means is that you haven't learned the "unspoken" rules of social interaction, so you feel threatened because you always feel you could make a mistake if you act in such an environment.
Same with me, but it still affected me in ways that I was not even aware, for instance where I completely avoided relationships out of fear that it will be the same as what I experienced or witnessed. It is all about learning to articulate your own voice and that takes time, courage, and a lot of hard work, sometimes too hard that most concede to living a lie.
That's probably because mysticism and business are at odds. Who is your master?
Quoting Agustino
I'm still learning, but there seem to have been mystics who were very political, very socially religious, etc.
Correct...
I'm not actually as socially inept as what I'm saying might suggest. It's just specific situations.
Edit, and moreso just a mindset.
You could, but incorrectly. If you really loved her, you would understand that she is domineering but would not let her dominate you. That is because you cannot love others until you first love yourself. Hence why "selfish" is a funny word; we tend to think it virtuous to sacrifice ourselves for others, but that is one great lie and yet those that act or behave like narcissists are usually the most vulnerable and have the least amount of love for themselves and that is why they cannot love others.
Never read Heidegger in greeat detail. But, there's the question of importance of desires. Which one's do we decide to entertain and for what reason? Psychological, moral, ethical, practical, rational?
Fear is ingrained in us, so there is no getting rid of it. I don't care if I feel fear about somehing - if I have to do it to reach my goal, then I will do it. So then it seems to me that it turns out that just because someone caused you to have certain fears, it doesn't mean that they really slowed you down. It's YOU who slowed yourself down, because you decided to listen to those fears in the first place.
Anyhow, it seems like this paradoxical sort of 'mysticism' is common in Zen Buddhism at least, although I could be wrong to associate the two.
That is not the point, the point is that I was not aware of it at conscious level. I believed wholeheartedly that I did not want to be in a relationship, that men were pointless and so I remained single willingly. I only began to realise that I was unhappy several years ago and it took me several years of just speaking about bits and pieces of my past just to make me realise that.
I was also terribly afraid of being alone because I had abandonment issues, so I intentionally wanted to be on my own as though I was fighting the fear. All of these battles that I had were really because I had bad parents and only accepting that it was not me did I start to think for myself.
You are absolutely spot-on that most of our decisions appear aligned with fear, but these fears are irrational and it is up to us to recognise that.
My being. My goal is to express my being most fully in an ethical manner, not to fit some sort of ideal.
So as I said in the beginning, these things depend on your personality. My personality is such that I want to have a positive impact on the world and society, and everything is ordered by this master-drive.
So it is most useless to tell me that mysticism and business are at odds - because we already know, a priori, what I will choose.
Quoting Erik
As far as I see it, all that is, is just a (negative) way to frame the idea of responsibility. You are responsible - and that's what causes anxiety.
Quoting Erik
You could, theoretically, but I don't see many practical examples of that. Also, it again depends on what you're searching for, which depends on your personality - as Heraclitus said, you will find that which you seek.
Those are questions that each person must decide for him or herself, albeit within certain social, historical (and other) constraints. Of course looking to the wisdom of the sages of times long past for possible answers--rather than, say, advertisers of consumer goods or modern politicians--is something that those with limited intellect and ability (like myself) have recourse to.
I have never had such an experience, so I can't comment. For me, I'm unaware of something if I don't want to be aware of it. But, I found, that one can hold even the most humiliating things in awareness, and nothing bad happens. It's just thoughts. When you do that, you gain cognitive distancing from them, so in effect, it doesn't matter what they are. What they are is a function of your history, but your history becomes irrelevant.
Why do you need @unenlightened?
I think that's part of it, the part that 'existentialists' like Sartre latched onto, but I believe it's deeper than that for Heidegger. That the world is, that I am and yet hardly know who I am... These basic facts, which ultimately have no conclusive answer (I know many would dispute this) can leave one in a state of dizzying perplexity.
Quoting Agustino
Remember the story of Heraclitus warming himself from the Essay on Humanism? That's a perfect example, perhaps, of the divine everydayness that the philosopher is tapped into yet which eludes the common people.
And if you were socially inept, how would you feel?
There are a few ways out of this - the most relevant one, is to understand the basics of human interactions, and how to disagree with people without causing conflicts. That's important. And after that, to know what you want. And after that, not to be attached to outcomes with regards to social situations - but rather to doing your best in applying what you learned in the previous steps.
You generalise the question so much, that all meaning is thrown out the window. What you are, and who you are, must be embedded in the world.
I have no issue with that; but you said that, in your opinion, "you cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that [mystical] path." You were responding to me asking Posty why the Christian mystics, for instance, wouldn't be on par with the Buddhists or Stoics. So, you're essentially suggesting that the mystic path is inferior, because you "cannot really adequately live in the world and follow that path". That I take issue with.
Yes - however, I am skeptical of the elitism of the philosophers, especially when promoted by philosophers. The philosopher wants to tell society that they need him - in fact, that it is only he who can save them. Doesn't the manager, the politician, and everyone else do that?
Perhaps that's wrongly phrased by me. You can be in the world and a mystic, it's just less effective, in terms of results, than if you were a Stoic.
Why do you keep asking about how I feel in various situations without then expounding on my answers? All you've done so far when I answer with my feelings is tell me how I probably then feel, which has been correct, but all you're doing is describing the situations that I'm already familiar with.
Why is there something rather than nothing is a general question that likely has no ultimate answer. And, as I understand it, that also means that our lives are ultimately mysterious and lacking in solid foundation.
That's a discomforting thought for some people, and we predictably try to evade the question by appealing to firm ground as found through religion, science, or whatever, with which we can tether our own identity.
Quoting Agustino
The funny thing though, is that we already find ourselves rooted in a solid foundation. That is what our society, culture, history, etc. provides. So we awaken, when we do, already anchored in that foundation.
Yes, I understand all of that already, and find it borderline offensive that someone would suggest I wouldn't know any of that. But that's the danger of revealing something so "mysterious" to the outside world as having been home-schooled. It's this mysterious thing; "did you do schoolwork in your pajamas???? lollll"
That's not true. The world is both contingent and necessary. My past is necessary - it couldn't not be what it was. My future is contingent. Past and future don't exist in-themselves, but rather in the present. So the present moment is made of both necessity and contingency, and one experiences both.
When you say that "the world is contingent", I'm not sure what you mean. Actually, I do know what you mean. You mean that the world, and all its history, etc. could have been different. That's empty speculation to me, because it's still true that today we have a certain fixed and necessary past.
Quoting Erik
Yes, that is true. But it's a historical process, which is governed both by necessity and chance.
Quoting Noble Dust
Why is it offensive? I didn't know that, until when I was like 19 or so. Again, finding offence is the problem. If someone were to say you're a retard, why would you find that offensive? That person actually can't harm you - either you really are a retard, in which case, the person does nothing by so saying, or you're not a retard, in which case the person's words don't have a magical ability to change that.
And I doubt human nature changes so much historically, if at all. We still find Ancient literature as relevant today as it was then.
However much we recoil at the idea, there's no solid, stable, enduring self to be found. This is an anxiety-provoking thought for many people, and again it seems like a good deal of energy is expended on avoiding the very issue and instead fleeing into distractions and comforting illusions.
God, dude.
Yes, there is a historically evolving self, which always has elements which remain stable.
Well, I'm actually serious. By finding offence in things people say, you give them power over you, and that's not good.
I recall threads in which youve been offended. I'm just looking for some empathy, but nevermmind.
You can't be aware of something you are unaware of, that is what being unaware is. But aside from that, yes, sometimes those humiliating experiences can almost be empowering when you are able to face them. That distance is objective consciousness.
Quoting Noble Dust
Yes, that is true. I failed in those threads, and that should be an example of what not to do.
Quoting Noble Dust
Well, you probably want me to say: "ohh poor Noble Dust, he was homeschooled, no wonder he's struggling socially, etc." - but I don't want to say that, because I don't believe it. I don't believe in the limitations you place on yourself, and I don't believe homeschooling is a negative thing. You seem to believe it, and now you want me to validate that belief, but I can't do that, since I don't share it.
But things can be brought into awareness.
And the process is initiated with feelings of depression, disassociation or anxiety before one can become clearly aware through an objective understanding. That is why those feelings should not be halted or stopped with medications - unless it is extremely serious - or submerged in drugs and alcohol, but through communicating about it through writing, or friends, or art.
That's your definition of empathy?
Quoting Agustino
All I did was mentioned a point of anxiety for myself, because you asked. We're talking about anxiety. You haven't seen me state whether I think there are positive aspects to home-schooling.
This alienation is not as uncommon as you think, on the contrary it could actually be an acute existential awareness. I would imagine that your difficulties are mostly because you are unable to genuinely connect, as though futile or the experience does not contain any substance or matter.
A humility of sensing your limitations that you will not actually be capable of reaching an awareness of the totality of things is symbolic of a maturity of character; you reach an impasse which is to accept that there exists no meaning in our lives other than what we create. So, happiness and our connections are formed as a clean slate, anew, the moment we begin creating it. Otherwise, you can find meaning in a spiritual realm that you give existence to perhaps as a need to form some symbiotic attachment to something that is intangible only to avoid that feeling of disconnection.
Perhaps this is the anxiety-provoking neuroticism derived from trying to model or envision or rationalize the world rather than for what is actually is?
Missed this earlier.
I would add that Heraclitus is said to have left his political community in order to live in solitude. He didn't want to lead them. And he apparently did this despite the fact that his family was well-connected, and he was in line to rule the city or petty kingdom upon his father's passing.
Whatever the case, I think Heraclitus was one of the few genuine thinkers who wasn't overly (if at all) concerned with gaining the esteem of his contemporaries, but rather aimed instead for the good opinion of posterity, and a small percentage of posterity at that. Philosophy itself is somewhat elitist, no? It runs in direct conflict with the values of society; well, at least in the ancient world.
He was clearly misanthropic, but we should keep in mind that he held the political and philosophical 'elites' of his day in much more contempt than even the unlearned hoi polloi. Somewhat like an ancient version of Wittgenstein in that regard, I suppose. Nietzsche and Heidegger, too, to a certain extent.
How strange that I'm not great in neither or both.
Yes, I believe so. But I could very well be wrong and should admit that I, too, have my illusions that help me cope.
Science helps release us from the grips of our imagination as @Erik states that we use to help us cope.
How strange that no philosopher, with their amazing intellect and ability to perceive the world, were not able to see the coming future of man creating a deity from his own labor...
Makes you think.
You can also have the law of non-contradiction and such paradoxical logic remains positive, just like how Foucoult speaks of power or discourse where people submit to authoritarianism and yet doing so alleviates their anxiety as they submerge their individual identity into the nucleus of the whole. This singularity of God that we cannot ever really know or understand - if adopting a Kantian attitude - is to understand it as a thought of ultimate reality, that by devoting oneself to the knowledge of God or getting closer to this whole or Nature, one is taking those steps towards ultimate good or moral unity. It is a formulation that mirrors a transformative individual that implicitly mirrors our behaviour.
Why do you find those things anxiety-inducing? To find them anxiety-inducing I think you must harbour the belief that you cannot or may not be able to cope with them. If you feel in control and capable, then you perceive change as exciting, instead of something to be feared.
Well, I am trying to provide you with things to think about that you might find helpful, but it seems that my ideas aren't very good for you.
I think it's a Sufi saying: When the stone falls on the egg, alas for the egg; but when the egg falls on the stone, alas for the egg.
Better to be a stone, then?
There are normal levels of anxiety and then not. It's not that people want ice in their veins. It's that they don't want to suffer excessive anxiety.
Who do you think wants that? I think that many people, to a certain extent or another, realise that not being vulnerable is not good, since it makes you weak. Those who dream of being invincible, dream of a totalitarian state, where everything is under tight control, and every little thing that isn't under control poses an exceedingly great threat. So being invulnerable doesn't lead to flourishing - it leads to a constraining of existence.
But that's not the relevant bit. What people really want is to be powerful or strong enough to deal with their vulnerabilities and not be paralyzed from living the way they want to live. So that's what people mean when they say they don't want to be anxious anymore - they want anxiety to stop controlling their lives, so, for example, they can take the steps they need to take to move closer to their goals.
Nicholas Nassim Taleb is quite relevant here. He breaks things into fragile, robust, and antifragile. Fragile is what people who experience crippling anxiety are. So from fragile, they can move either to robust, or antifragile. Robust is okay, just that it's static & brittle - it resists small changes well, but big changes destroy it. Antifragile doesn't only resist small changes, it prospers from big changes. I think that's where people want to be.
Quoting Hanover
In my case, this wasn't the issue - or better said, I realised over time that it wasn't the issue. The moment I stopped listening to my anxiety in some (relatively) small decisions, then I didn't stop feeling the anxiety (at least not immediately, over time it did mostly decrease in intensity), but rather it was no longer blocking me - so I acted normally, and behaved in ways that were productive for me and helped me get closer to my goals, without feeling any different. I was still feeling incredibly anxious basically, but no longer letting it dictate my behaviour. So my behaviour changed, but anxiety remained the same initially. Over time, I also got (to some extent) out of those anxious and ruminative habits, though I do still experience it every now and again, especially when I overwork or am very stressed.
My older son was driving his car following my younger son in his car and he ran into him, so now I have two wrecked cars. And, so you know, when I say they were driving their cars, I really mean my cars. I called the insurance company and said I wanted to make claims against them for wrecking my cars, and they said "Nope, doesn't work that way" arguing something about how I can't make a claim against myself since we're all on the same insurance policy. I then remembered that they were in the business of accepting premiums, not paying benefits. So, I got my oldest a much nicer new car (not "new" new, but new to him), which was his punishment for wrecking his car. My youngest son will have to drive with a bent up trunk until he graduates high school this year and then he'll have to get a new car I guess. I mean my boys can't do without. That'd be silly.
These wrecks are really going to set me back. I'm going to have eat domestic caviar for the next couple of weeks. Blah.
Ingenualonlia - Having a single idea in your head that dies of loneliness
Philodetestia - The love of hate.
Monopedfelinia - A cat suffering from having one leg.
SilencabsenciabutBaden - the sound of a tree falling in the woods when no one is around but Baden.
Congenital Citrucardiosubstituto - Being born with the unfortunate condition of having an orange in place of a heart.
I've got to work now, so I've just listed the obvious ones above, but I'm sure there are more that need to be said.
Is it legal to drive that early, under 18? So in the US you can't drink alcohol until you're 21, but you can drive under 18? :s That's one strange law...
You need to get a good lawyer to weasel your way around that. Maybe @Ciceronianus the White?
You can get a learner's permit at 15 where you can only drive with a parent in the car. At 16 you can get a full license, although I think there are some restrictions about how many can be in the car with you. You can't drink until 21.
In the US, it's nearly impossible to get around without a car unless you live in one of the few urban areas with meaningful public transportation. Laws are determined as much by necessity as consistency. As you can imagine, though, insurance rates for those under 25 are astronomical. Young people are terrible drivers.
I don't agree with your thoughts on lowering the drinking age. I know some countries have more lax views than the US in that regard, but the drinking culture in the US is not like other countries. Teenagers get really wasted and do really stupid shit over here. Maybe it's different in sophisticated Europe, I don't know, but the last thing I'd ever allow is a bunch of 15-16 years olds pounding beers on my deck.
No, drinking reduces your reaction time and thinking abilities. Hence, it is more dangerous to be drunk and not know what you are doing than it is to drive with full abilities of reasoning. Drunk driving is an issue though...
Do you like Scotch neat or on the rocks?
It is my understanding that it is violence to call a woman a girl.
Did you see "Is Calling A Trans Woman A Man (Or Vice Versa) A Form Of Violence?" I didn't see any comments from you in there. Bitter Crank, some others, and I took the old fogey approach - Treat people with respect, but don't mess with our language. A bunch of sensitive new age guys took the opposite side - that it is violence to fart in a bus.
I agree and I think a true Scotsman likes it any way it comes.
I'm 45 and went hiking with a male friend here in Spain a while ago, and a guy who passed us said "Hola chicos". Spanish has the benefit of having two words for both boy and girl: niño and niña for children, and chico and chica more generally*. As far as I can tell, niña is never used for women. This might dissolve the issue of violence (unless perhaps chica is used to refer to or address women much more than chico is used for men).
*This usage may be reversed in other Spanish-speaking countries.
I have always liked the way people in the southern US can say "Y'all," to refer to mixed or unspecified groups. Up here in the northeast, we say "you guys." Some people say "guys and gals," which is creepy. Most women I know recognize that referring to them as "you guys" is inclusionary, a way of showing the same level of respect we show to men.
Also, I was being tongue in cheek.
I can't remember what the last dumbest thing was that you said, but this has to take top spot.
If I remember, Agustino also thinks the age of sexual consent should be 14-16. I think 18 for drinking makes sense. Maybe graduation from high school. That way it would be less likely older kids would buy for younger.
Some of my friends call me "Clarky" when their intent is affectionate ridicule.
They call me Big Sexy
Well....hmm...well. I got nothing. We'll have to wait for TL.
That's ok with me, but all they get to drink is Manischewitz.
Here.
Yeah, but why is that dangerous? I think it depends on what you're doing or where you are while drunk. If you are in a safe place and if you're not doing any dangerous activity, I don't think drinking is dangerous (apart from the danger of alcohol intoxication if you drink way too much).
Quoting Hanover
Okay, that makes sense.
Quoting Hanover
Interesting, how is it different? I started drinking when I was probably 14, and quit at around 21 or so. Now I very rarely drink, and only on a festive occasion (Christmas, etc.).
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Do I get a prize? :P
Quoting T Clark
In Europe, it is 14-16 in many places. If I'm not mistaken, in the UK the age of consent is 16. It makes sense. You're old enough by then.
16, unless one of them is in a position of authority over the other, in which case it's 18.
Yeah, but there are European countries where it is 14. I think that's a bit low in my opinion, but it could work for some people who are more mature.
I wasn't trying to reopen the discussion, only pointing out that your opinions were consistent and reflect a particular understanding of the level of maturity of younger teens.
So you only chime in when the question is age of consent?
Also when I have an excuse to belittle you.
Mocking Hanover and barely-legal teens are my life.
I can't remember who on the forum it was who taught me the real meaning of the phrase "The exception that proves the rule," but I finally get to use it. If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 18 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 18 or older.
Most places it's hard to work without a car.
A peculiar saying, as exceptions disprove the rule.
Maybe in the US. In Europe, if you live in a city, you pretty much don't need a car. I get around without driving - the only time I have to drive is if I'm going countryside or something. And I dislike driving, so stressful.
But within the city - public transport, or if you're running late or you want to be fast, Uber or taxi.
If we're being strict logicians, this doesn't work. If it is unacceptable to have sex with someone under 12 over whom you have authority, then it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older?
I had understood that the phrase means that an exception tests the rule, which is consistent with your understanding. Although that interpretation has been used, it is not the original meaning. Here's from Wikipedia:
"The exception [that] proves the rule" is a saying whose meaning has been interpreted or misinterpreted in various ways. Its true definition, or at least original meaning, is that the presence of an exception applying to a specific case establishes ("proves") that a general rule exists. For example, a sign that says "parking prohibited on Sundays" (the exception) "proves" that parking is allowed on the other six days of the week (the rule). A more explicit phrasing might be "the exception that proves the existence of the rule."
If there is a rule that specifically says it's wrong to have sex with someone under 12, that means it is acceptable to have sex with them when they are 12 or older.
If there's a rule that says "you can't park here", does it then mean that you can park anywhere else?
Actually, parking is an example that's often used in relation to the phrase. A sign that says "no parking between 11 pm and 7 am" means parking is allowed all other times.
US society is really set up so that driving is hard to avoid. Public transit and rail have always been the poor stepchild of the transportation family. Highways are the favorite son. Maybe that's changing. Maybe not.
Not the same at all. Your sign says no parking here ever. Mine says no parking here between 11 and 7. That means parking here during other periods is ok. Neither say anything about anywhere else.
In a word: Jelly.
What about having to shoot an apple on some kid's head with a bow and arrow? That's crazy stressful.
It never used to bother me until this:
How are those two contrary to one another?
Quoting TimeLine
That's what i was describing, yes.
Quoting TimeLine
I assume you're bringing this up because you're saying it's the remedy to anxiety. I can't see how it would be. And the idea that we create our own meaning is essentially nihilistic; if we create our own meaning, then we each create a solipsistic fantasy more fantastic than the spirituality which you attempt to rationalize in your next sentence.
Married with children? Hell no.
Funny show, though.
Yeah, possibly, haven't tried it >:O
I take it that you have experience with doing that? :P
Keep in mind that there are people who, because of who they are and the lives they lead, don't get it. They can stand outside our lives, maybe even their own, and give opinions, but we are stuck inside. Before you can have the kind of perspective TL is talking about, you need to be able to stand outside yourself. As you know, easier said than done. There are people who just want you to "snap out of it," as if we wouldn't if we could.
That's not an excuse or a way of avoiding responsibility, it's just the way things are.
My current favorite is "Drive as if your kids lived here." I always say you should keep your kids off the street as if I drove here.
Well, I did suffer from anxiety in my late teens, and I did find that you actually do have to snap out of it, or ignore the anxiety that you feel - pretty much. It's like when you're running - you have to get used to the discomfort you're feeling, and cease wanting it to stop, otherwise you'll stop running.
Different things work for different people. For many, most, saying snap out of it won't work.
There's a bit of story there...
It's just not a good idea to let children drink poison that impairs their ability to reason.
I’m a little unsure what you mean here; for instance, there are people who don’t get what, exactly? I think it’s just your wording.
I always felt bad for the slow kids as I watched them from the front window of my anxiety-ridden home-school utopian prison.
How dare you group me in with the normals. I’m normal-non-conforming.
To some, I suppose.
You should consider some Australian women.
I have this sneaking suspicion that people think I have a fierce kind of bite despite being so little in stature and so loving in nature.
They would be right, of course.
I mean, praying mantis females enjoy a delicious meal of man-head with a side of crispy leg-salad and they are quite small too.
You’re reading just a little more into that than I intended. She is fierce. You are fierce. She is Australian. You are Australian.
[hide]
What, are you on a low-carb diet or something? All moody at the sight of cheese because you want to look good in that dress?
Here's a typical Australian woman:
Quaint reference to 1980s technology grandpa.
Feel free to use that as your avatar. It's pretty cool.
Absolutely must read some PKD sometime...
Oh god, don't make me gush. Please do. But, as a stoic, you may be either egregiously offended, or just unmoved.
Do build on this hype train just departing!
Waaa!!
Damn, I knew that vid would stall the train...
Quite confusing experience, don't you think? I stopped at 13:30, after the entity sent a letter to the RMC informing that allusions to the New Testament had happened and a miracle had occurred.
Confusing indeed. What fascinates me about PKD is the paradoxical combination of lucid clarity and insanity.
But for clarity (??), when he says "the entity" did this or that, he means that the entity did it through him, as far as I'm aware. Not that that really makes it any more clear.
Others less silly than ProgrammingGodJordan and his various sockpuppets are still having conversations in that discussion.
You mean that was a good speech written by a talented speech-writer, right?
Lololol! Hanover! This gem is one for the ages. Especially for those of us who do or have worked in the insurance industry.
Aristotle will always rank! ;)
Sun Tzu said that if the general gives unclear instructions, and the soldiers don't execute well, it's the general's fault - but if the general gives clear instructions, and his soldiers don't execute well, then they are already headless >:O .
http://history.buses.co.uk/history/fleethist/images/merc109n.jpg
https://vimeo.com/155309506
You don't like Xena, how about this. My least favorite Beatrix Potter book to read, but my favorite title.
I've thought about this some more. I think you're right.
Your age? You little bebeh.
>:O that's old for a hamster!
If you don't know then I suggest you gat some remedial classes.
It was too early this morning for me to remember. What was the title of the thread?
It seemed to be about the height of Mt. Everest. it was addressed to Apo, perhaps in response, related to the thread on Wittgenstein, Dummett, and anti-realism
Ah that was the topic. I remember a thread back in time that was something to the effect of was Mt. Everest the highest mountain in the world before it was named Mt. Everest. I am probably not doing it any justice but I remember getting turned around and backward on the thread and then a year or two later reading an article about Mt. Everest not being the height that it was thought to be but I think it was taller.
Oh well, sometimes Banno's threads take time to percolate and he is not a "thinker" that likes to spoon feed people so there are times where you just need to let it run a bit to see it's meaning.
It's a great teaching style but not everyone's flavor.
Sad and pathetic can also be funny depending on the circumstance.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, not my world, that's for sure :P . On the one hand, just sex doesn't feel good, makes you feel like an object. On the other, I have no time for a meaningful relationship at the moment. So then, in no way does sex rule my world.
I also don't float around that kind of party-going crowd for whom sex rules the world. And neither do I interact with a lot of young people in my day to day activities - mostly it's middle-aged folk, and sometimes even old people. The middle-aged are generally too busy to talk about sex, and the old people sometimes talk about it, but it's funny to listen to them.
I would imagine that some young guys, let's say less than 30 years old, would be quite into sex as a source of self-esteem, largely because they have no other way to feel good about themselves. Young people are often deprived of a place in society, and this homelessness is a means of controlling them. The old folk are very much afraid of the young.
Quoting Thorongil
Why? It's become quite an indifferent to me. If you visited a foreign planet, where the inhabitants, say, tapped their heads every now and again, you'd just shrug your shoulders and pass on. The only reason why something can be disturbing to you is if you have an interest in it.
Oh yeah, hot people who get laid are like hobos socially. :-}
Mad because you don't get to vote? X-)
So sad yet true. One can abhor sex even though their unconscious yearns it.
If only the brain had a sanitation officer for emotional junk and clutter.
That'd be you.
I always wanted to be a sanitation officer, thanks!
True story. I actually asked for an application to be a sanitation officer when I was 10 years old. I waived at the garbage truck often whenever passing by also.
I dunno why I'm telling you this, but yeah :B
Because society is sex-saturated, from which it is impossible to escape. Aldous Huxley said, "An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex." When you find something more interesting than sex, being bombarded by concupiscence can be exasperating.
Which, in Aldous Huxley's case, was LSD.
Physiologically, and psychologically sex is considered a want, not a need. People, think it's a need nowadays, sadly.
I'm trying not to become misanthropic, sorry for coming off as such.
Maybe both? The desire for orgasm seems to be prompted by bodily need; it is a need we want to satisfy. If we can't or don't (for whatever reason) of course we will not drop dead, usually, anyway. But the desire returns, and always seems physically prompted.
Sometimes we "want" warmth, food, and drink, but it isn't just an aesthetic choice: We want these things because our bodies have registered that they are cold, hungry, and dehydrated. A real need underlies our want. We can delay, but eventually we will drop dead if we don't satisfy these needs/wants.
I want a really nice pair of shoes. I don't need a nice pair. There is no physical need prompting a desire for very expensive cordovan leather shoes. It's strictly aesthetics. (I'll do without, of course.)
You think someone who can get laid has social skills? Give me a break. That's what silly 14-15 year olds think. That's not what qualifies as social skills. Social skills are what you need to get important stuff done in the world - start a business, run for political office, be a successful lawyer or doctor, etc.
So if all you can do is get laid, congratulations, you're almost at the bottom of the pyramid now. As I said, young people are kept at the bottom of the pyramid socially. That means it's hard to play important social roles in your community as a young person - you are actually prevented from helping.
Quoting TimeLine
So-called society is actually formed of multiple societies. We could live in the same city, and yet live in different societies. If I am, for example a Mormon, I could live very differently from you, an atheist, even if we're next-door neighbours (and please don't edit out that middle "m" when you quote me, I know what kind of stuff you can be up to). That's what I tried to illustrate by my personal example.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I don't think one really abhors it in that case - maybe they wish to abhor it, but clearly they don't.
What do you mean "escape"? Does someone force you to engage in promiscuous sexual behaviour?
Quoting Thorongil
Why? And how is that different from being bombarded by, for example, celebrity gossip of a non-sexual nature? Why do you find the one more exasperating than the other?
Well, yes. Not everyone is such a Stoic as you say. It's impossible not to be moved by the rest of people while living in a society.
Yeah, but I think there is some self-deception there. You might abhor some kinds of sex, but I doubt you abhor all kinds of sex - you are a biological animal, so the sex drive is bound to play a psychological role for you. So you should be honest if that's the case - you don't abhor all kinds of sex.
And then it becomes a question of whether the kind of sex you accept is available or not, given both your position in society and your other goals. If it's not available, and you understand why, then it becomes an indifferent for you. Either you're not married, or you don't have time for a meaningful relationship, or the way/place you were brought up in didn't allow you to become as socially integrated as others, etc. etc.
I would not use the term 'need' here. More like urge?
Just like their personalities and think either one is befitting.
lol, the economy is doing great, that's virtually the only thing Americans care about. So long as the economy is going great, nothing will trouble Trump.
Be that as it may, that isn't an answer to my question at all.
I can say a lot about why the economy is recovering but that's besides the discussion I want to have. I do suggest you look into when the recovery started. I'll wait for you to give your first compliment to Obama when you're done.
Yeah, it did start with Obama, but it only accelerated with Trump, since investors can finally bank on tax cuts to bring the money back and increase investments.
I'm not going to debate this but would suggest you look into the various market (price) reactions right after his election. That really says it all what investors expected from a Trump presidency.
I'm still waiting on an answer to my original question though!
Benkei,
I have a compliment for Obama.
Dear President Obama, you are a gem for leaving the White House when your term was over.
Sincerely,
Tiff
In all seriousness, Trump is not self-destructing yet but the week is still fresh.
The Democrats have become the party of resistance and will say no until Trumps time is up. From a very rudimentary standpoint they have staked their victory on granting the DACA kids citizenship or a path there to, in exchange for their agreeing to the new budget for the citizens they have been elected to represent. If you take the emotion out of it, you will see the Democrats putting the USA citizens needs, our military families daily meals on the tables where one parent is serving overseas, second to what are currently considered non citizens who will still receive any state awarded assistance such as food, medical and schooling.
We are a self employed, single breadwinner family who specializes in small business IT. Why on earth would I have ever voted for anyone else running?
And before you go all "Especially considering your views on grace and gentleman like behavior" on me, let me give you a little idea to chew on for a moment. When President Clinton was first accused of sexual harassment and rape, his faithful wife Hillary said that the accusations were a "Right wing conspiracy" to take down her husband and there was absolutely NO truth to them, even though she knew there was. Now fast forward to Fall of 2017 when the Harvey Weinstein accounts of abuse began to surface. Do you really think that Hillary, the first female president of the USA would have stepped up and apologized to those who accused her husband Billy and took up the cause end to this abuse?
I didn't say you should've voted or Hillary to begin with. You can abstain by voting blank, which is a clear condemnation of both parties. As to "what ifs", they aren't very useful. All I know is Trump talked shit about women, Mexicans and a boat load of others, called political opponents all sorts of names, invited the Russians to meddle in the US elections etc. etc. before he got elected. There was a lot he did that totally disqualified him to you if you had been prepared to apply your standards to him as well. But you didn't for obvious reasons as your first paragraph makes clear. Don't feed me all these high-and-mighty, grace and gentleman and principles as if they matter to you. If they did, you wouldn't have voted for Trump. The Tiff I knew would be disgusted with him well before his election.
Obama is and was in every way a better man than Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013
This is a harder question to answer. Democrats are choosing this 'hill to die on' because the DACA cause is a fair cause and one I happen to agree with. However after living in a border state with Mexico, I can understand why someone from New York would think a "Wall" would work to keep the nations separated because that is how it is in the city, my hometown of Chicago included. After moving to the desert I understand the challenge of securing our southern border and the economics of that security succeeding or not. What seems like a 'few immigrants' now will continue to flow until there is some form of a 'port of entry' so Trump is correct in that if we do legalize the DACA kids now without a secure border, we will only be left to face this dilemma again.
I honestly think it's symbolic. Like, hey you guys act macho and tough on the other isle and stand up for ideals, but so can we.
:-O Who said I wasn't disgusted with his behavior? However, you cannot base your choice on whom to vote for on one quality or fault,for no one man is perfect. And let it be a comfort to you, that I am held accountable for voting for Trump because my youngest Indian wants to debate it daily when he is home from college.
Oh man....oh boy....really? How?
In terms of personal character? In some regards he surely is. But in terms of policies, definitely not.
So then
was "fleshed out enough"?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/145834
No, I would have deleted that if I had caught it earlier. It's a bit far gone now.
A strange inference. I spoke of society, not of myself.
Quoting Agustino
Because the former is more ubiquitous than the latter.
You tell me.
When I saw Piglet, I thought to myself - Eeyore would be much better.
I'd say I'm more the anxious type than depressed...
I just like Eeyore better. He has a more developed philosophy.
I think he has some good points. Spending time with him would be an enlightening experience, I think.
Okay, so what would it mean for society to escape?
Quoting Thorongil
In some societies it certainly is. But is it the uniquity that makes it problematic?
I think so, because it can't ever be eradicated and nor would I want it to.
How would I do that? You gave me a subjective observation about yourself.
I'd guess the Democrats are trying to solidify their current and future base. The voter base in the US is becoming less and less white every year because of the baby-boomers expiring, low birthrates among white couples, and higher birthrates among immigrant couples. So looking to the long term this might be a good idea.
If you would not want to eradicate the ubiquity, then why is it problematic?
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/congress-barrels-into-shutdown-without-protecting-military-pay/article/2646584
Blame McConnell, not the Democrats.
Also, the shutdown didn't even need to happen. The Republicans could have just carried on with DACA. So perhaps it should be reframed as "the Republicans are putting their desire to kick people out of the country over the needs of US citizens".
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/905228667336499200?lang=en
One thing is for sure repression does not work.
Agusty's problem is always the same. He thinks God has made us ill with sexual desire, and commanded us to be well by ignoring telling us to suppress it.
He is in denial about human nature. This is a constant problem for the religiously minded.
The Dems even offered Trump funding for his silly wall but his anti-immigrant adviser Stephen Miller asked for an exorbitant amount that Trump hadn't even wanted. It's a clown show. They don't even know what they're negotiating. (Even Lindsey Graham is getting annoyed with his own side).
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/21/government-shutdown-immigration-graham-miller-354747
You were right about something...
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2018/jan/22/swansea-city-liverpool-premier-league-match-report
My condolences. We are here for you, in whatever way we can.
Yes, really sorry to hear that, mate.
I mean, I know he's rather far off on the spectrum (based on my PM's with him); but, I didn't feel as though he violated any of the TOS provided here.
My dear friend, I am so sorry to hear the news of you losing a good friend, so young as it seems like we have our whole lives ahead of us, at any age. The delicacy of life we hold in our hearts, should always be handled with two hands, it is that fragile. My heart aches for yours but I know that a silver lining you will find when your fingers touch the keys.
Quoting Benkei
Never stop living the love out of life~ (L)
@Bitter Crank
Quoting Bitter Crank
Instead of explaining to you the theory my Mom ingrained in me in killing my enemy with kindness, I shall instead turn my sights on the true beauty of YOU!
I happen to think that you are a VERY attractive man, both in physical features and the wit of the mind. If I ever run into you, you are going to have to keep reminding me that while you appreciate the beauty of the female form and mind, it is not your absolute ideal in a partner. "Just think of me like a Priest Tiff" might work but even then there is a primal desire to change the ultimate part of a man. Is that a wicked thought or a normal one? Or one that is rarely expressed?
Thankin' you. :)
I've tried to Thank him for what he does around here and to get him to take a compliment, in addition to all of his Awesomeness the kid turns out to be humble too.
Yeah, he's great, whatever. Long as he keeps workin' his shifts. ;)
So you probably don't want to miss noting that he is attractive too, right?
Is that one of those "you lose just by answering it" questions??
You are quicker than I thought. Maybe you are a worthy opponent despite what Hanover says.
Ha, Hansover has been slandering me again, eh? Someone call reptile control.
@TimeLine could you please do something about Hanover?
I don't think luscious leg pictures are going to solve the problem, Tiff.
Maybe not but just as a side note? I love the word luscious. In fact an author I edited a book for believed in the power of words that start with "L" because they are usually sensuous in nature. Odd thing for him to notice as he was non sexual, or a-sexual but man could he find the satire in life. Such a shame he left this world too soon but his legacy lives on in folks like me that he touched but never met.
I'm 29.
But thanks for the kind words all the same.
How else am I to get a raise? I think I should at least get double.
[i]Ian Dearden
Philosophy Now
2005, 2008[/i]
Some sure do. :)
Approved. Now we're paying you the approximate future worth of your cryptocurrencies. :p
Would you say it would be a problem if married couples had sex three times a day, every day, without compromising any of the other vital functions they have to do (work, help their communities, study, educate children, etc.)?
We live in an age when true education is virtually non-existent, even in Universities - in fact, I might say that especially in Universities it is absent. So why would one wonder that most people are controlled by their sexual impulse, when even the philosophers of today (read shapers of culture) glorify it?
The extent to which legal punishments could be helpful varies, but the very fact that one even thinks of resorting to putting sexual behaviour into the law is a sign of a decadent age. As Plato wrote in The Republic:
So these are matters of education - people must be so educated that the wrong sexual way to behave does not even cross the mind anymore. This is best done in childhood, in schools and within the family. In the absence of this, the person is, for the most part, left to Fortune's whims. If they are like me, failure in a relationship may get them to re-evaluate their habits, and provided they have access to the right intellectual resources and have developed the intellectual capacity to understand, they may be able to extricate themselves from their predicament. But otherwise, they are cursed to follow their existent habits or those of the friends they already have. One might add that one always goes to one's friends for advice first, and to books only after.
The state of society is the fault of the philosophers, many of whom have stopped doing philosophy, and others which have retreated into their own caves, selfishly enjoying their own enlightenment for a little while. Many of the philosophers have failed to develop ways to influence their fellow citizens since many of them seem to lack social skills or otherwise have an unwillingness to engage or "be contaminated" by contact with the unphilosophical masses.
You should worry about stupid people, cause you have to live with them man... If you're not concerned about the education of your fellow citizens, then you will soon find out that your society has become stupid (creating problems for everyone), and now you can only change it with much greater difficulty.
We're not talking about educating the populace. We're talking about sex. To the extent promiscuous sex translates into people having children they cannot afford and that results in responsible people having to take responsibility for that, I'd be in favor of advocating responsible use of contraception. Of course, this isn't a sex problem, but an irresponsibility problem, and I'm generally against irresponsibility in all it's forms, whether it be sexual, economic, career, education, or whatever. But, to the extent folks out there are having sex however and whenever they want to, I don't care as long as they are able to deal with the consequences of their decisions. So, if I have a couple of children out of wedlock just because, you have no room to complain as long as it doesn't affect you.
But to your point, sure, I'd rather have 100 really smart children borne out of wedlock than 100 morons in intact families.
This is a strawman. I never argued that each man is an island, so I'm not sure what you're responding to.
I thought we were talking about educating the populace about sex :D
Quoting Hanover
I disagree with you because these things are all tied together. Someone who is lustful, and approaches sex in that manner, cannot be responsible in all circumstance, that's what I would claim. I have no doubt that such a person can have a sort of "pragmatic" responsibility, but there will be situations and contexts when he (or she) cannot adequately foresee the consequences, so then his/her judgement will fail. Whereas someone who has developed the habits of virtue acts in a just manner regardless of circumstance.
I am a virtue ethicist, so to me, one's character has to be right to prevent immorality and irresponsibility. We cannot just ignore one's character and think they will just make the right choice in the specific circumstances they face because they won't. You must cultivate certain habits, and one such habit would be control over lust.
Quoting Hanover
Would you agree that certain actions will cement certain habits, and certain habits become part of our character? If someone has a one night stand every day, will this not become a habit for him? And if it becomes a habit for him, won't his thinking, and his attitudes, start, to a certain extent or another to revolve around this way of acting? Such a person may be affected in such a way that they won't make a good mother or father, or wife/husband in the future.
Quoting Hanover
I have no legal room to complain (and that is probably right), but I do have room to complain socially and in terms of trying to educate you to do better. For example, having children out of wedlock may be problematic - maybe it makes your wife jealous, maybe those children have a crazy mother who will want to raise them herself, maybe those children will come to split the inheritance with your other sons against your will, maybe those children will develop mental health issues, maybe they'll have less financial resources that your other sons, and so will feel envy etc. etc. - these are social problems, that are my concern, and everyone else's. Your actions have repercussions that affect all of us, and that includes what you do with your sex life. So this may not be relevant when it comes to deciding the law of the country, but it's definitely a relevant problem when it comes to education - pretty much any social activity, and sex is social, should be part of this education.
Quoting Hanover
Yeah, that comment isn't addressed to you in particular, it was just some thoughts I had surrounding these (and similar) issues. I did not quote you or reply to you in that post.
In relation to the above, I will say that this is much like how a government official becomes corrupt. First it's a little "yes", said for a tiny sum, that he says very reluctantly - but with each successive "yes", it gets easier and easier, and the sums get bigger and bigger. Maybe at first, there was no damage done (or the damage was insignificant), but sooner or later, as he gets more adventurous, there will be damage. In that sense, a vice is just a negative and self-destructive habit that perpetuates itself.
Thoughts?
[hide="Reveal"](joking lol)[/hide]
Cheeky Song (Touch My Bum), The Cheeky Girls.
Haha. Just doing my job and have people hate me for doing it sounds so much fun. No but really. I want to go after the twats that want their cake and eat it too.
And that's what I deny.Quoting Agustino
Whether there's an underlying failure in someone's personality that makes it difficult for them to be in long term monogamous relationships and it reveals itself with promiscuity is a possibility. On the other hand, there are many very good parents that simply make very bad romantic partners and many very good romantic partners who make terrible parents. Keep in mind that I'm not suggesting that promiscuity while in a supposedly monogamous relationship is acceptable, but that has less to do with sexual mores than it does honesty.Quoting Agustino
Again, I've not suggested having children with another woman while supposedly being committed to your wife. Crazy moms and mental health issues arise within the family unit as well (can I get an Amen), and I'm not sure why you think they're more likely to occur in out of wedlock situations.
Do you reckon it's possible to separate one's personality completely from one's actions? I think the two mutually shape each other, do you disagree with that?
Quoting Hanover
That underlies a different presupposition you have. Personally, I subscribe to the Platonic/Aristotelian account of virtue ethics, where there is such a thing as the unity of the virtues - meaning that a truly virtuous person cannot be a good romantic partner and a terrible parent. If that's the case, then he is not a virtuous person. In other words, what it takes to be a good romantic partner is related (though not identical) to what it takes to be a good parent. So at the very least, if someone is a good romantic partner, they're more likely to be a good parent.
Quoting Hanover
From my experience, it's just based on the likely personalities you encounter. From the POV of a man, talking only about women who are promiscuous, I noticed they are more likely to be subversive of the unity that is required to form a couple or a family, and will generally have different goals in life. That is also what I meant by unity of the virtues - a kind of person who is interested in such things, has differences that run through their entire life, not just the sexual aspect.
Then there's nothing to worry about. Next!
And then eat it.
I can see parallels between umbilical cords and the IRS. One needs sustenance to function properly, yes?
No, you should work for the IBS instead, as things run smoother.
You can't define reality based upon ancient Greek principles, but you actually have to look at reality first and then see if your principles describe reality. That is, you do have really bad romantic partners who make really good parents. That I can't get along with the missus doesn't mean I can't raise healthy, happy kids. That me and the missus get along famously doesn't mean that I can't raise a bunch of hellions. So, if your philosophical presuppositions state that all great spouses make great parents, your presupposition is wrong.
Quoting AgustinoIs this now a more likely than not, 51% chance thing, or is your theory that they must go hand in hand.Quoting AgustinoWomen are promiscuous for all the varied reasons that men are. I guess some are evil, subversive creatures, looking to undermine happiness and create jealousy, while others are lacking self-esteem, are insecure, and who may be looking for real love in their terribly inept way. I'd assume there are thousands of points in between with all sorts of personality profiles.
Don't see how one can work with IBS. Seems like some quite slippery stuff.
Not everyone can stomach it.
I was already worried about everything, and now this!
Sounds like you could be faulty. Have you tried taking yourself back to the shop and asking for an exchange? I think humans are still in production.
The idea of "going after" someone is silly. As if that someone didn't thrive as part of a particular social structure in the first place. No politician or entrepreneur exists alone, without having the support of key members from within a power structure. Most entrepreneurs aren't very smart, they're pretty much just regular people, who have, over time, built out a support network surrounding whatever trade they're in.
So what you should be doing instead is tackle the underlying problem, which is one of education. People are so educated that, for example, they don't have a problem if they receive $10 million dollars to give whatever entrepreneur a state contract worth 10x as much. Policeman doesn't have a problem if he receives a $100 dollar bribe. The man in the street has no problem giving some money so they let him off whatever petty thing he did. So the problem is a cultural one, and starts from the very bottom and goes to the very top.
Where I live, if you offer a cop a bribe, you just turned a speeding ticket into a felony. In fact, it'd be so ridiculous, he might not even take you seriously.
Agustino has some strange views about people. I don't disagree with that.
I'd rather be Belgian than 'Merican.
Although, admittedly, not by much.
Agustino's an orthodox prude;
An upright and moral young dude.
His sex life was too oft prunéd.
So him joy of life thus eluded.
For happy men are regularly screwéd.
A lady in Oz labeled TimeLine
never could have a real fine time
she sat and she glowered
once sweet, she had soured
And now just stews in quick lime.
Calm down, dear. You should be so lucky to have such a limerick dedicated to you.
Yeah, that probably doesn't happen as often in the more developed countries, where the morality of the people is usually also one of the reasons why they are more developed in the first place, in my opinion.
Although, you have the wrong idea if you think that you'd offer it in such a way that you could be accused of a felony in case of refusal.
Nah fuck that guy. Writing 'you make my dick hard' in the workplace in public, no matter how poetically couched, is about as straightforward a case for dismissal in any circumstance.
I agree.
Quoting Hanover
That's true.
Quoting Hanover
Sure.
Quoting Hanover
I didn't say they must, in all cases, go hand in hand. Rather the point is that the virtues are mutually supporting. This becomes clear if we take extreme cases. Someone who completely lacks empathy and social skills cannot make either a good parent or a good lover. Whereas if someone already has empathy, then, for example, they can develop social skills much more easily. If someone is a good lover, it is easier for them to be a good parent than for someone who isn't.
While the virtues somewhat overlap and are mutually supporting, it doesn't mean that someone who has developed, say, compassion, is also able to restrain their lust. But having developed compassion certainly helps since one can perceive the negative effects of lust on themselves and others more easily. So by the same train of reasoning, it is absolutely possible for someone to be a good lover (having developed whatever characteristics are necessary) and fail to be a good parent (having failed to develop one or more characteristics that aren't important in a lover but are important in a parent).
So yes, someone is more likely (and that doesn't mean 51%, since one lacking characteristic X could be 10% likely to develop characteristic Y, while someone having characteristic X could be 20% likely to develop characteristic Y). So "more likely" is a relative thing. The virtues do have a tendency to go hand-in-hand (because there are similarities and overlaps between them), as I said, but this isn't an absolutely necessary rule when applied to individual cases.
Quoting Hanover
I really didn't mean that they would be consciously malicious or anything of that sort when I said they're more likely to be subversive. The reason I said that is simply because they usually have goals which are in conflict with what it takes to form a long-term, stable couple, relationship, and family.
Quick example, I remember someone here (don't remember exactly who, maybe it was Akanthinos?) is dating a stripper. They mentioned that she doesn't want to get married or ever have children. She just has different goals, and in that sense she is subversive. And she has different goals by nature, it's unlikely that you'd convince her to switch her goals and priorities around. And the fact that she has such goals is indeed related to her career, her sex life, and everything else in her life. These different aspects all strive to form a whole - it is very unlikely that you'll find a super promiscuous woman who wants to have a stable family, get married, and have children.
So what do we do if the woman jumps on you in the workplace and starts kissing you? Also straightforward dismissal?
There once was a man named Crank
Some guys would call him a skank
He liked to shock
So he wore a frock
And regularly draws a blank
Wipe it off? Anyway, she took photos of it and shared them with a news agency, which got him fired. That sounds like doing something about it to me.
And regularly shoots a blank.
"If my words did glow, with the gold of sunshine
And my tunes were played on the harp unstrung
Would you hear my voice come through the music
Would you hold it near, as it were your own?"
In still waters, When there is no pebble tossed, nor wind to blow.
Gotta love a song about fish.
Reach out your hand if your cup be empty
If your cup is full may it be again
Let it be known there is a fountain
That was not made by the hands of men
Life is hard yo.
*Mary Jane West-Eberhard - Developmental Plasticity and Evolution
http://longreads.tni.org/state-of-power-2018/lessons-1968/
Adam Curtis should adapt this into an Adam Curtis documentary.
I see there is an ebook :)
I only read fantasy and sci-fi. Life is too serious already for me not to want to escape it when reading.
You who choose to lead must follow, but if you fall you fall alone
If you should stand then who's to guide you?
If I knew the way I would take you home.
(L)
Very spiritual in nature~
I call this 'My New Pair Of Jeans Is Better Then A Man' from my I Don't Give A Shit About The Australian Open Collection.
We are approaching the close of month three of my Mother In Law living with us, in her van down by the river. When are you sending for her so I can hold my breath until she leaves? I am losing all patience and my grace is on it's last little leg....please man, have a heart
Oh, no, no, I am NOT going to be the last one holding this hot potato.
I am outta here...moving somewhere colder where older people don't want to go. 8-)
Playing games is great if the purpose is to connect with the people around you, right?
Sell up, pack up, leave. End of problem.
MTV in Canada had a good sober driving advert: 3 guys are in parked car. Guy A passes the bong to the guy in back saying, "Wow, this is really good stuff". The two guys in front look at each other and lean toward the center and kiss deeply, then part. The guy in back says, "Aren't you two guys brothers?"
The scene closes with this image:
Start betting on card games, competition gets stiff when people have money at stake. ;)
You should look into New Angeles by FFG. You will either connect or end up hating each other.
You definitely need an upgrade in shoe & boots taste. Did you get those at Payless or Kmart?
Here, get a boot like this from Allen Edmond -- made in Wisconsin from leather tanned in Chicago -- Tiff will appreciate that. This is the Normandy. $350 -- you're a lawyer, you need a decent boot to stomp all over the opposition. When it wears out, Allen Edmond will rebuild the boot for you.
Looks about as comfortable as a pair of wrong-sized ice skates. :P
Rude. I mean, who are you sizing him up like that? Don't make me get all Bon Qui Qui on you, boy, I will cut you.
Your extrapolation of my waist size is eerily correct, as is your ability to determine my store preferences, although, to be fair, you are aware of my ethnic background, so you would know of my spending habits.
Here are my actual boots, having purchased them online at a real military surplus site at the bargain price of $25. I know they're real as they have the name and scent of the marine noted in the interior of the boot. These are from the "G.I. Hanover" line.
Baron von Munchhausen syndrome by proxy. Do you want to talk about it?
You have me nailed BC! The thing I like most about your choice in boot over Hanovers' wanna be boot is that your choice can handle a horse putting it's hove on your toes and they are untouched. Where in Hanovers' boot.. well....the toe would get all swollen and blood blisters under the nail which he will eventually lose.....oh wait we can just scroll back and see what his toe will look like. :-O
Good Heavens Hanover! I can smell those from here! Gettem outside!
I was wondering if that Lilac scrunch was his bed spread or the lining of a casket :-O
"Oh and this one here was taken over seas
In the middle of hell in 1943
In the winter time, you can almost see my breath..."
This anecdote finally answers the pre-Socratic question that has plagued Western civilization for ages: "When is stepping in dog shit a good thing."
You done got my back. Respect. He don't need to be gazing at my thighs and shit. That's your eyes only.
Maybe that boot could withstand actual labor, but it's too expensive and dressy to subject it to that. That's a metro dress boot. Real boot wearing workers shop at Wal-Mart. The other day I was helping a lady with her gutters and a construction guy was also helping. He saw my boots and asked if I did construction. I told him no, I just bullshit on the internet all day. Had I been wearing those $350 boots, he'd have thought I was an uptight suburban lawyer. Ridiculous.
Forevz, we be like Bonnie n Clyde.
What do you people think?
1) Is Stormy Daniels just trying to ride the event to increase her popularity and possibly increase her financial gain by being silent when questioned on those matters by the reporter in order on purpose to generate controversy, even though she did nothing with Trump?
or
2) Is Stormy Daniels really under a non-disclosure agreement with Trump?
And if (2), why doesn't one of Trump's rich opponents offer more money and protection to her in exchange for breaking her silence - or would doing that be illegal?
https://youtu.be/bDRbF80NKDU
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/147602
What do you reckon is the case?
Was this an unusual lapse for Donald? Don't know. Maybe he is all talk, and this was a rare actual incident? Don't know. Illegal to bribe somebody to break a contract? Probably. Is it done? Probably. How often? Don't know.
Generally, I don't think sexual behavior is terribly important when it comes to judging political performance. There are numerous grounds to consider Donald Trump a poor political performer, but sexual behavior doesn't figure into my calculations. I haven't held it against other presidents (like Bill Clinton) and I wouldn't hold it against Donald Trump.
What is the case is that presidents (and other public servants) should be judged on the basis of their performance of the office. I want them to deliver excellent service to the public in their positions. They may be unfaithful to their wives or husbands, screw up their marriages, may engage in sex acts that the public might not approve, and so on. All their extra-curricular activities are just that -- extra curricular and not part of the course.
Well his wife might consider it an important story, noticed she cancelled out on Davos trip.
The UK/AU press has published a lot of rumors about a spat, US press not so much.
... You realize the dude is constantly harping about how un-scientific everyone else is, yet allows himself to claim that the egyptian snake coiled around a cup was somehow inspired by an intuitive knowledge of the double helix structure of ADN?
Someone who teaches a course named "Maps of Meaning", whose curriculum promises that someone who has analyzed his experiences according to the method taught will never have negative emotions about it... That's not the champion POMO fears.
Well, this is worth reading, then.
is-jordan-peterson-the-stupid-mans-smart-person?
I mean, I'm sure the man has said some stuff which I wouldn't agree with, and which would raise an eyebrow, but ...really? Better to watch one his lectures or read one of his books and make your own mind up.
MacClean's is Canada's Paris Match. Tabatha Southey is a solid columnist. Hardly a blogpost.
Then again, if you are the type to respond positively to Perterson's bullshit, you probably wouldn't respond well to a column piece saying that people who respond well to Perterson's bullshit are just stupid. :B
Yeah yeah, I googled "Maclean's" too late, although at least I've spelt it correctly. I should have googled it first, but it does look to me like a blog post. Hmm... a "solid" columnist? What does that even mean? If you say so. Struck me as purposefully one-sided with an immature style which does her no credit.
Quoting Akanthinos
No, I think that bullshit from anyone is, well, bullshit. But it's not all bullshit and it doesn't take much skill to cherry pick quotes like that.
Maybe, but the article from an intellectual point of view should be highly embarrassing to its author. It's an absolute hit piece. I don't agree with Peterson on everything but against this kind of amateur attack (or Cathy Newman's) he'll win every time. I actually haven't seen a nuanced criticism of the guy anywhere. If anyone can point me in the right direction....
I was thinking the same.
Someone who write regularly and professionally for any of the five biggest publications in the country?
Quoting Sapientia
Or, perhaps, there is just no other side to the story, and Peterson is an attention-seeking idiot. In such a case, more credit to her for putting him on display as such. And yes, pretty much everyone here in Canada hate Peterson. Well, unless you are on his Patreon.
Can you give a nuanced, balanced critique of why you disagree with Peterson?
The target doesn't warrant anything else.
Think of all the vitriol that was reserved to Pinker a few years ago when "evo-psycho" started being a dirty word. This dude deserves it all, contrary to Pinker.
Saying the target doesn't warrant a sophisticated, rational or intellectual response sounds like the attitude of someone incapable of providing one. I mean we're at least dealing with an individual who is, whether his detractors want to acknowledge it or not, an academic. We're not talking Richard Spencer, David Duke or Donald Trump here. The left only embarrasses itself when it has nothing but knee-jerk reactions or nasty little take-downs to offer, and I say that as someone whose sympathies are much more on the left than the right.
I get some of that impression from JP too, and it puts me off him as a person. I don't think he realizes the extent to which he projects his own personality traits through his philosophy, (which is odd considering his focus on psychology) but the article doesn't really tackle what he actually says, and the way it gets exaggerated and distorted by those on the left who seem incapable of distinguishing between fascist ideologues and conservative intellectuals.
That's fair enough. I stopped watching too after a little while.
An academic specialised in Jungian psychology, who allows himself to claim that multiple other departements in his own University should be closed because they are 'pseudosciences'. You can choose to engage someone like that and believe it speaks of your intellectual integrity : I choose to believe this just means you are naive and undiscerning.
What is even the point? Who enrolls in a PoMo-centric cursus without being aware of it? Who the fuck enrolls in U of T without knowing it's the one of the biggest center of gender studies in the world? Why, in any and all planes of existence, would you even want to enroll there if you can't bear feminism?
Actually, it means no more than I believe in rational engagement with those who I disagree with unless they are intellectually incapable of responding in kind. That doesn't mean taking on every argument but not everything the guy says is nuts and he shouldn't be so easily dismissed. And he definitely shouldn't be strawmanned the way he was in the article you referenced or in the Cathy Newman interview. It's totally counterproductive not only intellectually but politically. If his position is so weak why can't it be dismantled (should someone bother to do so) without resorting to hysterical exaggerations that make his opposition look desperate?
What hysterical exagerations? If someone told you the basis of gender problems is that men cannot hit women in an socially acceptable manner, that there is no physical threat of violence in male-female interactions, and because of that, women are free to spend their entire lifes disrespecting men, do you need to engage that person? Imho, no, you don't. It's the equivalent of posting low quality OPs here.
This is not a strawman. This is the actual claim of Peterson. Hysterical strawmanning is, in fact, the name of the game he has mastered, and that his status enables all his followers to also do. So, no, you shouldn't engage that. All it does is invite more alt-right types to burst a vein about freedom of speech violations.
Quote him.
http://var.st/2nk
“Here’s the problem, I know how to stand up to a man who’s unfairly trespassed against me and the reason I know that is because the parameters for my resistance are quite well-defined, which is: we talk, we argue, we push, and then it becomes physical. If we move beyond the boundaries of civil discourse, we know what the next step is,” he claims. “That’s forbidden in discourse with women and so I don’t think that men can control crazy women. I really don’t believe it.”
Regarding the necessity of the “underlying threat of physicality,” Peterson says, “If you’re talking to a man who wouldn’t fight with you under any circumstances whatsoever, then you’re talking to someone to whom you have absolutely no respect.”
“I’m defenceless against that kind of female insanity because the techniques that I would use against a man who was employing those tactics are forbidden to me,” he says.
I think it's unnecessary to make the point that men cannot use the implicit threat of violence against women in the way they can against men (in a socially acceptable manner) and so find themselves at a loss to deal with certain forms of female behaviour. It also could be taken to imply a desire that this were not the case (even though it doesn't necessarily). So an ill-advised comment. (Silly to use the term "crazy women" too.)
But you said he said
Quoting Akanthinos
That's a clear strawman on the basis of the quotes you provided above. Nowhere did he say this issue was "the basis of gender problems". And this kind of misrepresentation is just the type of thing the left shouldn't do if it's to be taken seriously.
I don't know if he leaves himself open for this sort of thing purposely or not. He says he's not a deliberate provocateur but I've often thought he is (and I've tweeted some sarcastic comments in his direction on that presumption). The fact is though if you have the patience to sift through it, he often doesn't actually say what's attributed to him.
Jesus if you want to subject yourself to the whole thing, go ahead, it's linked right there. I don't have a full transcript and sure as hell won't be the one to sit through the thing to type it down.
Quoting Baden
That's directly implied by this : Quoting Akanthinos
If reading these clear implications from his discourse, if that's your definition of hysterical strawmanning, then I definitly won't be able make you see things from my point of view. :s
Your exasperation doesn't cut much ice. The fact is that hand-waving in the general direction of an article when asked for a quote to back up a specific claim only demonstrates you can't do what's asked of you. Which is exactly the problem.
Quoting Akanthinos
Actually, I didn't claim you were hysterical. I did claim you were strawmanning. And this is another (albeit fairly mild) example.
Tangentially, this is the most inaccurate statement ever made about a Canadian in winter.
My inner jury is still out on JP's awareness that he's doing this, but those on the right that exalt him as some kind of anti-PC hero and therefore all-in with their stupidity are indeed idiots.
Lol.
Took you a long time, but I knew you're a conservative at heart :D
This one was a very good talk:
I've become more mellow on Peterson over time. The secret with him is not to take everything he says at face value, because he's talking to a specific audience everytime.
He's arguably a very powerful and well-educated speaker, much more educated than his opponents for that matter. A lot of what he says (such as the importance of honesty, and how lying relates to pathologies) is very significant. As for some people who think Jung shouldn't be taken seriously - they're idiots.
Peterson's main shortcoming, in my opinion, is that he has serious holes in his philosophical education. Virtually no understanding of Aristotle/Plato, or pretty much the entire history of philosophy until Nietzsche and the phenomenologists/existentialists/pragmatists after. That's something that is evident.
If you like Peterson's analysis of mythology, you can try reading René Girard, who argues along very similar lines, but much more rigorous - Violence and the Sacred is a good book, or even Things Hidden Since the Foundation Of The World.
Quoting Akanthinos
Only some leftists, in particular those who are (1) like being dishonest, (2) want to live in an utopia, (3) don't understand one word of what Peterson is saying.
Quoting StreetlightX
Oh yes, the incomprehensible POMO books are a lot more interesting, you can spend years and still not know what was being said - can't compete with that :>
Quoting StreetlightX
And maybe that was true. Why are you so sure they weren't happier in that role or social setting? And why is that barbaric?
Quoting StreetlightX
Hmmm sounds like Zizek X-)
He's very hard to dismantle because he doesn't have a position, only attitudes. There are only straw men to attack, because there is only fulminating complaint against the conspiracy, which if you question him you are part of wittingly or unwittingly. The great thing about Jung, Nietzsche, and Rand, the cited authorities, is that they too do not really make arguments, and so are almost impossible to defeat.
One is left with a vague but rugged (male) individualism, and anti-collectivism, as though a university was not a collective, some moral platitudes disguised as psychological science, and a nostalgia for the mythological good old days when men were men and women were grateful and ***s knew their place.
One such position is the centrality of speaking the truth (or what you, at a certain time, perceive to be the truth), regardless of consequences. If you are dishonest and do not speak what you perceive to be the truth - or at least avoid speaking what you know is false - then you will start pathologising your structures of perception. Over time this will lead to psychopathology, where you no longer perceive reality correctly. That's a position you could argue against, but lo and behold, you don't.
Another position is the importance of mythology in structuring our lives. The world isn't just a set of facts, it's also a forum for action. Learning what you should do in the world is as important as learning what the world is. Another clear position, that you could argue against, but you don't.
Another position is that the correct path to walk is the middle-path between nihilism on one side and totalitarianism on the other. Some people want to eradicate all evil and problems from the world, so that we can all be safe (that's your leftists) - that leads to totalitarianism and the enslavement of the individual. The other path is nihilism, where there is no concern for the world and others at all. The middle-path there is to accept vulnerabilities and focus on building up the strength of the person so that they can BEAR all the evil and suffering of the world. So instead of trying to make the world better, as totalitarianism does, you try to make the person more capable to deal with the world as it is. Again, you don't argue against it.
Another position is the unity of the community that is formed on the background of the sacrificial victim - the 99% against the 1% that you so frequently see today. So peace achieved through sacrifice of another, instead of through self-sacrifice - the way Christ showed. And so on so on. These are actual positions, but you're lazy, so of course, you probably don't even know about them. Easier to say that it is impossible to defeat.
This. So much this. So there's much pose-striking without substance, a mood or air that simply demands agreement or rejection without reflection.
Quoting unenlightened
Oh yeah, says who? You? Arguably the guy who reads entire books by verbose people with no substance to communicate? :s
Clearly, you have not listened to the man carefully and systematically, because if you had, you'd be able to obtain a handful of very important positions that he holds. I mentioned about 4 important ones above, but there are many more.
People say the same kind of nonsense that you and UN say about René Girard - that it can't be proven wrong, etc. etc. Nonsense. 99% of those people, you two included, have not read and understood the available material.
Yeah, the moral of that story is that if you lie once, and you're caught lying, people won't believe you next time. Doesn't sound like such a terrible consequence. The consequences Peterson is talking about are a lot more terrible, and it doesn't matter if you're caught or not (in fact, it's worse if you're not caught). Not only will others not believe you, the bigger problem is that you yourself will no longer be capable to perceive what the truth is, and will develop actual psychopathology and mental health illness. Now THAT point, I haven't heard before, and even if I have, I wasn't aware of it, because it wasn't phrased in a clear way that spoke to me.
... always carry a gun?
Sudden enlightenment? 8-)
A fate worse than death. Is there an argument? is there some evidence? Is there something other than a platitude, or perhaps a beatitude?
Of course dishonesty is psychologically damaging. Don't do it. Now give me some money for my stunning insight.
Yes, if you listen to his lectures he does explain why and how lying pathologises your internal structure of perception and orientation in the world.
Quoting unenlightened
Yes, he gives examples from history, from his clinical practice, as well as his study of psychology.
Quoting unenlightened
Thank you, I would have bought from you, but you're too late now. The new Bill Gates will not sell an operating system (as Peter Thiel, a student of René Girard, once said).
He varies between self-helpy stuff e.g. concerning Jungian concepts such as shadow integration and so on, and empirically-based arguments e.g. that men and women's average IQs and cognitive abilities are equal but their personality traits differ in specific ways that have important consequences. I don't think he's any less vigorous than he should be considering his attempt to appeal to a general audience. And again, he seems to run rings around whatever opposition he encounters (so far as I've seen). So, he warrants a more sophisticated approach than blanket dismissal in my view. And the reason he doesn't get one seems to be at least partly because he gets too closely associated with his alt-right fans who really are not worth debating.
;)
On the other hand, Sapientia seems to like him to. Colour me conflicted.
Yeah. :s
Now this is something we ought to be worried about:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/top-putin-opponent-arrested-amid-anti-government-protests/story?id=52663068
I disagree. The reason he doesn't get one is that he only runs rings, and stands for nothing.
And a vast majority of them are ignorant and intolerant. Don't get me wrong, but many of the people you find in Universities today have no place there.
Evidence? Or is it all empty talk?
Of left wingers or of the left wing protesters in question? If the former, of course not.
Of left-wingers on University campuses in the US (and quite possibly other English-speaking campuses).
So many sweeping judgments on TPF today...
I first read that as "Just keeping the pants clear".
Do I need Jung or Freud on this?
It might be sweeping, but it seems to be true regarding the US.
Thought so...
Where he said "You should not play video games 10 hours a day unless you want to turn pro" I would have added to the end of that "like an idiot." I'm sort of like Peterson in that way in that you have to listen to everything I say and not stop listening because the last thing I say sometimes matters unless it doesn't.
It's not our business to put our noses in how other people choose to be productive.
Because you won't make money at it and you'll just tell your parents that you're being productive in hanging out in the basement eating Cheetos and screaming at the TV screen. Then one day when you're like 30 years old and 400 pounds, you'll have to finally admit that you destroyed your life playing video games and your parents will be sad they raised a loser who won't clean up his room or feed the dog. Then when your parents die, they'll have to cut a hole in the wall and use a forklift to remove you from the home and you'll appear on daytime TV where people will get outraged you're being body shamed. How many times must this exact scenario get played out before we learn? We're better than this!
Ummm, there are ways to make money at it. I haven't played video games in close to 10 years, but I remember that you could make good money if you played Starcraft at a professional level (and were Korean lol). But have a look here for example:
https://www.esportsearnings.com/players
That's only prize money from competing and winning. There's also massive amounts of money spent in advertising. For example, in Korea Starcraft was almost a national sport - big brands always sponsored the tournaments, the players, etc.
Some of those people you laugh about make more than you do probably.
But I do agree with you that if they're using video games as an excuse not to do anything productive, that's a different story.
Quoting Hanover
>:O >:O >:O sounds like a life with few, but quite exciting moments!
The hardest thing for most is to find what they like. So if your kid is one of the lucky ones, and already knows and is committed to something, that should be supported in my view.
Actually, if my kid was really good at soccer, but not absolutely amazing, I'd tell him he had no chance of making pro. That's not being discouraging. That's being honest.
Yeah, except, how can you be sure of that? It's a sort of relative thing isn't it? How do you judge his skill compared to everyone else? If he's the best soccer player on his high school team, and you sent him to play for some local team, and he shines there too, then naturally you should encourage him to try and go higher. There's no way to know unless you get him to try it.
And even if he doesn't have what it takes to succeed as a soccer player, there are other jobs that are related to what he loves (soccer) that he can do. He can train to become a coach, sports doctor, etc. etc. So there are a lot of ways to go from there. It's not like the skills you learn in trying to become a professional football player cannot be used for other things.
I have a friend who tried to become a professional tennis player, and he did get in top 1000 in the world and participated in some tournaments, but very small earnings. So by age 25 he had nothing basically. And so he worked giving tennis lessons to others, saved money, and now he owns his own courts and has his own tennis club. So if the person fails in one thing, it doesn't mean he or she cannot succeed in something related.
Even people who did end up shining, many of them did not realise it early. For example, Schwarzenegger, his father tried his best to stop him from wasting time with bodybuilding and getting a real job. When he was in the army, they did the same. And he had to run away from the army to participate in a bodybuilding competition.
So my advice, in such cases, when the parents are not cooperative, are that their child should try to do it anyway. It's his or her life afterall. And maybe not listening to what others say is part of the makeup of those who succeed - maybe it is what it takes.
Why is that unreasonable? That's how it actually is, life is complicated. That position could be rebutted if you had another position like Hanover does for example. It depends on the actual situation - does your child really want to become a professional video game player? Is he good at it? Has he tried participating in online competitions, and he was successful? And so on... but if your child's dream is to become a doctor (say), then it would be a waste of time for him to spend 10 hours per day playing video games, and you ought to discourage that.
It's not unreasonable, it's trivial. Fuck me Ag, is life complicated? Who woulda thunk?
No, sorry, I don't want to do that. I think @Baden should add propositioning to the bannable offences list >:O
Quoting unenlightened
I don't see how that's trivial :s . It's not trivial for Hanover for example. And there are many other people who disagree with Peterson on that.
Yes, because he is an authentic lawyer, who knows that every single comma counts! ;)
Oxymoron.
No, no, I gave you a list of 4 critical (and somewhat unique) ideas, but there were no ideas found. I must buy better glasses I think >:O
Yeah, but are they authentic?
Oh come on, yes we have. And if you haven't, then go do some research.
It would not surprise me, a lot of his ideas (certainly the big 4 I mentioned), are similar to Girard's ideas. Even the criticism against Peterson by people like you is the same as the criticism against Girard. But you have not spent time understanding their work.
But the fact that some people argue that JPB is a guy who has no ideas, and they compare him to Ayn Rand, etc. is utterly ridiculous. JPB taught at Harvard, he is, at the very least, a cultured man by today's standards.
Yeah, and now he's relegated to hitting balls back and forth to middle aged housewives whose husbands work all day so that they can drink mimosas and screw the tennis coach. He'll get in his forties and his knees and elbows will scream in pain while he stands on the pavement in the hot sun wishing he'd have stayed in school and not chased his dream and regretting he didn't have a good father to have told him "son, you're good, just not that good." And once he realizes he took the wrong path, it'll be too late, and his parents will be sad they raised a loser and they'll start forgetting where they left their pants. He'll try to help them, but they'll be so ornery he'd rather just be alone, and then once the depression sets in, he'll turn to internet porn, which will give him only shameful fleeting comfort. When will we all learn? Great God Almighty. When will we all learn!
Strange, the opposite happens to me - people talk about me when I'm NOT in the room usually - don't know if that's good or bad >:O
>:O >:O >:O
Yeah, but he enjoys running a tennis club. He has other coaches working for him too, so he doesn't do as much of the coaching himself nowadays. That means he gets to spend lots of time with the bored housewives talking after the games X-) . He's trying to grow currently, he's been adding courts, one year or so ago he installed that bubble thing around the courts for winter play too, etc. He seems to be doing well, though I haven't visited him there for quite awhile. He did acquire some debt though I think, so probably he'll be having to pay that in the future.
And tennis is actually not a hard sport to play, especially if you don't play with young, up and coming people, and you have a lot of training. Like a good tennis instructor can easily play against a novice without moving much. And there are people who play well into even their 70s (one time when I went during a summer, there was this 60-70 year old man playing in his actual underwear because it was too hot for him >:O - hilarious to see)
What the fandangle? It's always "give me this TL" or "give me that TL" but what about me? You know what you can do, you can crawl back into your hole and brood over lost opportunities with blind, banned girls into astrology.
Is the world full of only baloney-pony heads?
I done let you down. Why can't I ever get it right? She meant nothing to me. I swear. She played me, knowing my weakness for the eyeless. But you, with the pic of the arced brow made me realize I like eyed girls better. How can I convince you? And that ice cream. I mean hold off. You know I don't like a big bedunkadunk. I'm rambling, not making sense. I'm a blubbering mess. Just look at me.
Here's one I made earlier.
I think there’s a disagreement I have with Jordan Peterson that is foundational for my other disagreements with him. He has a lot of talks on venerating and revivifying our western culture to preserve what is good in it, there’s a bunch of arguments he has to show this.
The first one is, roughly, venerating and revivifying Western culture is what a psychologically mature and healthy being would do. without an organising principle or cultural myth, people are lost and confused - seeking that eternal father figure or ‘master signifier’ as it’s called in Freudian/Lacanian critical theory. This element is sometimes called the 'tyrannical father' in his lectures.
The second is that there are inherent properties of humans that lead to successful and non-successful cultures, and these roughly correspond to humans who have belief systems that allow them space to move or be an authentic being, living within their own adopted but culturally informed value systems.
So successful culture = allows potential of authentic being, non-successful culture = does not allow this potential.
For Peterson, to be authentic is to live in accordance with your conscience and beliefs and affect the world around you to that end, I think he believes this is also what it means to be a morally responsible adult - since any authentic being would discover within themselves a normative and moral core. If this cannot be realised due to cultural conditions, then that culture should be disregarded and safeguarded against. This is actually pretty similar to one of the first heralds of postmodernity, Nietzsche, and the authentic being concept he uses is stripped from existentialist philosophy more generally. he’s also a fan of Nietzsche.
But he remained a Christian (a Christian theologically inspired worldview, if not a practicing one), despite agreeing with the ‘devastating attack’ (his words not mine) that Nietzsche produced on the christian moral system and its metaphysics. He largely agrees that 'God is dead and we have killed him'. So he follows Nietzsche part of the way through his ‘destruction of metaphysics’, in proclaiming/noticing that the christian narrative (with its holy father of a master signifier) is largely dead. but he seeks to salvage some of the remains in a fashion to allow the west to safeguard the progress that modernity has granted. In essence, he's a conceptual grave-robber, seeking the best aspects of humanity in the 'sepulchres of God'.
But at this point, he’s quite silent on any positive conception of Western culture - other than whatever the hell it is has brought progress, technological advancement, and a global decrease in poverty. He’s allowed not to have such an architectonic vision because that’s explicitly what his existential psychology grounding rejects. Do what you can, where you can, and by what you believe.
This elides that the condition of postmodernity as a broad theme of Foucault, Derrida, Baudrillard and Barthes - who he does not like at all - is precisely the absence of any normative organising principle that gives order and inherent meaning to peoples’ lives. The cultural malaise and metaphysical nihilism that he highlights as our lot in the west is in part a consequence of the singular insistence on authenticity and living within your beliefs. that’s why it’s chaos.
He then says that this chaos makes proper Western ideas easy to subjugate to united barbarism or people obsessed with the meaninglessness of everything. the west remains secular in spite of this, why? I’d suggest it has something to do with a formless, frothing sea of personal ideology and authentic expression being impossible to attack for any systematised philosophy or religion. Far from arming us to slay his 'dragons of chaos', he is an ideological parasite exonerating the individualistic notion of identity which created the dragon through social malaise in the first place.
So in essence, he shouts ‘do it better’, which is exactly what everyone who has a conscience is shouting, and this is a symptom of his belonging and symbiotic relationship with postmodernity. If he were right, he couldn’t appeal to others in the way he does; like a self help book with citations. The citations are usually wrong insofar as they concern the existential and postmodern traditions - confusing Nietzsche with Camus and Lacan with Heidegger on points. He also never actually goes through a textual analysis of his major bugbear Derrida - spouting unrepresentative and uncharitable drivel along with his cherrypicked headliner quotes (eg: find one discussion he has of 'there's nothing outside the text' which doesn't devolve into a tirade on Nihilism).
The Partially Examined Life podcast submitted an open discussion piece to him on Youtube calling him out on his misrepresentations while highlighting the good bits of the rest of his worldview.
Depends. Do you actually watch the news, like with Shepard Smith, or do you watch the opinion shows, like Hannity?
The latter is a definite no. All you'll get is spin and conspiracy theories.
Fox News has a "Right" bias and "Mixed" accuracy. Also "deemed the least accurate cable news source according to Politifact", Politifact being "Least Biased" with an accuracy of "High".
Better to watch something like the BBC. Only a slight lean towards "Left-Center", although still closer to "Least Biased", but has an accuracy of "Very High".
There's also Reuters which is "Least Biased" and has an accuracy of "Very High". Might have more American news than the BBC.
How did Media Bias/Fact Checker rate in terms of accuracy?
I'm finding out that pretty much all these middlemen, unless you have prior connections with them, seek not to do anything and get paid. At some points, it kind of gets outrageous, since they literarily do nothing. I'm in a similar situation right now, but not with property though. I've learned to be very very tough with people who do work for me, because from the start most of it ends up being poor quality work - it's rare to find someone who does good work at reasonable prices.
We should all be very proud?
You like my eyes? You know, not many people know it is a deep brown, but that if you look close enough it has a dark blue ring around it with tiny speckles of green.
Alright, fine, I forgives you. But, you still have some work to do. I call this "Walking Into The Wrong House" in my Stop Looking At Your Phone collection. You jealous that I get to wear Birkenstocks while you cover your disgusting, damaged toe in shitty boots?
To be fair, I can only say I like your eye because you only provided me a picture of one of them. You might be like one of those dogs that has different colored eyes, or maybe you have a glass eye or wandering eye. But, yes, I did find myself losing myself in the gaze of that eye.
I have blue/green eyes, which means some Aryan must've jumped the fence at some point in my genetic past. If you look closely into my eyes (and trust me, you will), other than seeing eternity, you will see little black flecks, sort of like the imperfections you might see in an emerald that make each of them unique. I often wax poetic over my eyes, and should you see them (and trust me, you will), you will as well.Quoting TimeLine
I actually have worn your Birkenstocks. I tied my shirt into a cute little knot, put on my sassiest ripped up blue jean shorts, put my glasses down my shirt, and blindly walked down the street, unable to see much, but looking like I owned the cobblestone street. It's actually really cold here because it's not upside down here like it is there.
Made by a philosopher and somewhat surprising results for me. I thought Kant would be number one, and I put 'no preference' for the God questions.
Augustine (100%)
Aquinas (94%)
Plato (78%)
Aristotle (50%)
Kant (43%)
Protagoras (19%)
Hume (4%)
Sextus Empiricus (2%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Interesting, this is what mine came out to.
Aquinas (100%)
Augustine (82%)
Plato (68%)
Aristotle (51%)
Hume (47%)
Kant (44%)
Protagoras (27%)
Sextus Empiricus (17%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Hume (100%)
Kant (90%)
Aristotle (75%)
Plato (47%)
Augustine (31%)
Aquinas (29%)
Sextus Empiricus (29%)
Protagoras (13%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Kant (100%)
Augustine (63%)
Protagoras (53%)
Aquinas (46%)
Aristotle (42%)
Hume (42%)
Sextus Empiricus (40%)
Nietzsche (16%)
Plato (0%)
Augustine (63%)
Aristotle (50%)
Aquinas (38%)
Hume (38%)
Protagoras (38%)
Sextus Empiricus (38%)
Plato (13%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Um...
He's a bit of a Kant like that... I guess they don't include his moral theories in their calculations.
Hume - (94%)
Protagoras - (82%)
Sextus Empiricus - (78%)
Aquinas - (73%)
Kant - (65%)
Aristotle - (48%)
Plato - (11%)
Nietzsche - (0%)
Aristotle (86%)
Augustine (86%)
Aquinas (56%)
Hume (38%)
Sextus Empiricus (15%)
Plato (12%)
Protagoras (4%)
Nietzsche (0%)
In light of the fact that Nietzsche has received 0% from almost everyone here who's taken this test--WTF with Baden at 92% though?!--I feel like whoever set this up must have an extremely narrow and unnuanced way of understanding of his thought.
Maybe it's the way the questions are framed in binary ways or something, but that sort of simplified approach to moral (and other philosophically-related) issues is a bit unfair to someone like Nietzsche.
Interesting idea to put something like this together but maybe it could use a bit more subtlety. Or maybe I'm the one who's been misinterpreting Nietzsche all these years? That's a legitimate possibility.
Right. And how you could you possibly get Nietzsche at 92% while also getting Augustine at 73%? Not to mention Kant at 100%. I'd assume there'd be an inverse correlation between these two seemingly opposed thinkers.
But I've already forgotten most of the questions and there may an explanation for this strange result. Perhaps they're more alike in fundamental ways than I'd imagined.
Yeah, that was funny.
Aristotle (78%)
Protagoras (74%)
Hume (64%)
Augustine (60%)
Aquinas (44%)
Sextus Empiricus (41%)
Plato (2%)
Nietzsche (0%)
I thought I was more Nietzschean.
I expected to come out fairly Nietzschean. Don't know why no one else could manage it.
Augustine (100%)
Kant (99%)
Aristotle (80%)
Aquinas (78%)
Hume (62%)
Plato (47%)
Protagoras (25%)
Sextus Empiricus (25%)
Nietzsche (0%)
Explains Kant at least.
So, you're saying kill everyone who's not funny? You monster.
I'm generally not, but I see some issues, like those with which Jordan Peterson is most associated with, as being characterised as a conflict between that which is practical, sensible, and liberal on the one hand, and that which is impractical, silly, and authoritarian on the other. I'm most definitely on the left, and more closely fit the description of a progressive than a conservative, but I will readily disassociate myself with some of its more radical aspects which do not align with my views or way of thinking.
In the current political climate, I readily offer my support to further the interests of the working class, and would rebalance the scales, but I do not offer my support to this group of conceited clowns who demand that others adopt this peculiar use of language in reference to themselves.
I take issue with some of these contemporary versions of identity politics.
I said that I cannot prove neither disprove the existence of God, and I am suddenly Augustinian, while Nietzsche appears to be demonised. Nay, I think it is just another test developed by someone like Agu.
Ahhhhhhh this is so coooool.
DNA has an in-built mechanism for varying the frequency of copying errors, which is basically an evolved mechanism for accelerating evolution (and also with the possibility of murdering you from the inside - cancer - but then, natural selection will take care of you). Immanent directed randomness :D
Oh yes, exactly. But it's not just college kids. There are video debates involving him and other professionals or apparent authorities, like this one including Peterson and this guy who I think was a professor of transgender studies, where I would contrast Peterson's sensible views with the professor's hyperbolic nonsense.
Maybe he only seems like such a beacon of good sense when they put him up against such pretentious idiots. But so long as there are pretentious idiots in the limelight and gaining traction, I'm glad that there's a Jordan Peterson to combat them.
Right.
Either that or Baden is the Übermensch and you're just a bunch of h8rs.
2. Kant (58%)
3. Protagoras (42%)
4. Sextus Empiricus (36%)
5. Aristotle (29%)
6. Hume (21%)
7. Aquinas (15%)
8. Augustine (0%)
9. Plato (0%)
The Nietzsche questions were a mixed. The ones dealing with contempt for God were sort of accurate, if you read God as transcendent metaphysics that only ignorant fools would have anything to do with.
Others were petty much terrible. One seemed to assume Nietzsche thought or values were subjective (I just assumed the question was talking about the context in which morality always occurs or the despite fact that people have different moral values), another was some nonsense about being the edgelord genius no-one understands (I just took this to be "Those fools following transcendent metaphysics don't understand what really true).
100% Hume, 0% Plato. :D
Pretty crazy to get a high score on Nietzsche, in my opinion. And some of the Plato questions I find the answer to be obvious.
I guess I got Hume, Kant and Aristotle in my top 3 because of my scientific, empirical, atheistic leanings. I'm quite happy with that top 3, and that Plato and Aquinas are in the bottom 3.
Why does Augustine score so highly in most of these results? Not sure how I got around 55% agreement with the guy. I would've thought I had more in common with Nietzsche than Augustine.
I found the Nietzsche questions easy to identify, but too extreme for me to give an answer which would place him higher up in my results.
If you believe that the most important moral values are being free ourselves and respecting the freedom of others, you would attempt to hold a more relativistic understanding of why people resort to transcendent metaphysics rather than dismissing them as fools. How they identify and articulate their experience is what Nietzsche referred to as perspectivism. Are you just another one demonising poor Nietz?
It's rigged in favour of Augustine!
More or less agreed, which he does. My point was the quiz seemed misunderstood this aspect, and confused it with truth or values. So the quiz is simultaneously getting Nietzsche's position on values wrong, while also implying he's far less pluralistic than he actually is.
His contempt, which the quiz vaguely get right, lies only in a narrow realm of metaphysical enquiry. While it's there, the foolishness of the mistake is neither here nor there in a lot of instances, as most of life is not metaphysical enquiry. Life is much bigger than if one think it's defined by another realm or worthless.
Yeah, the latter is definitely a dingbat.
Tldr: it's full of false or otherwise misleading statements. Surprise!
Well, it's nice to have one of my minions point that out as I am too humble.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I disagreed with "Only weak, cowardly people believe in God", which is the only question that matches your description there. Still got 92%. Anyhow, the test ain't all that good. Much less accurate (for me) even than this piece of badly-designed brain fluff: http://www.gotoquiz.com/which_philosopher_are_you which gave me the following results:
81% - Early Wittgenstein / Positivists
77% - Nietzsche
69% - Sartre/Camus (late existentialists)
58% - Aristotle
3% - Immanuel Kant
0% - Plato (strict rationalists)
(3% Kant Woohoo!)
[i]We should live to be...
the person who understands and accepts life's absurdity.
the person who reaches Truth.
beyond good and evil. [/i](Lol)[i]
the perfect median, the virtous individual.
an ethical person, who acts only out of good will.[/i]
I'm an Aristotle and Kant lover. The Aristotle is much as I had predicted.
:-}
Look closer. You got 100% Agustino, not Augustine.
Yeah, but think how long they'd have lived if they didn't smoke.
Impossible.
[i]Steve Patterson
Nov 2016[/i]
"Well, I have news for the quantum mystic. Your worldview is a load of baloney, built upon mistake after mistake, a foolish understanding of the relationship between data and theory, and a complete lack of big-picture critical thinking. ... In order to “observe” things at a quantum level, it requires specialized devices, which necessarily “interact” with whatever is being observed in order to work. The instruments of measurement physically interact with the system being measured. ... Let me be clear: no data – ever – has been produced to show that conscious observation is what collapses the wave function. Quite the opposite is true. ... Anyone who claims otherwise is either confused about basic terminology, or is an outright charlatan. “Observation” means physically recorded measurement and not conscious awareness."
There should be a forum bot that posts this automatically everytime some crackpot half-brain claims that QT requires conscious awareness.
Is there observation without conscious awareness?
Interesting.
The quantum woo'ers are (N)
[i]Chris Morris
Fortune, Time Inc
Aug 2017[/i]
Lazy buggers :D
:-O Suddenly, very briefly, like a whisper, you were attractive to me until I realised it was you who posted this. I went backwards, you see, starting from the bottom of the page and scrolled upwards.
I need a cold shower.
Good, thanks for admitting you hold a bias :D
On another note, @Baden, I have to go before a judge in less than 2 hours, you think they will capture me? >:O
If they consider my bribe satisfactory...
You have done well.
I got Ayn Rand. :s
So did I, haha.
I suspect malfeasance.
Terrible questions, though.
Kant (100%)
Protagoras (50%)
Sextus Empiricus (50%)
Aquinas (25%)
Aristotle (25%)
Hume (25%)
Nietzsche (25%)
Plato (0%)
Hmm.
Yeah, I'm not going to start calling myself a Randian just yet.
Phil said 6 more weeks of winter.
Mangoes like a shot of B12!
A shooting star's mold breaking time is limited, same with all originality.
I'm losing interest in philosophy... Am I getting old or does philosophy get better with time?
In reading the above entry, I came across an interesting section which details problems with the notion of mind-(in)dependence. I thought it was worth sharing here. I thought the best part was this:
I took out a large chunk so as not to kludge up the thread, but the section framed by those sentences is what I'm referring to.
Kant (100%)
Aristotle (79%)
Protagoras (61%)
Sextus Empiricus (61%)
Hume (58%)
Augustine (43%)
Aquinas (40%)
Nietzsche (40%)
Plato (0%)
Yet we quote these people. One envies the social structures that enabled these pieces of wisdom from Asia.
"While physicists, philosophers, historians, and others talk of the Copenhagen interpretation, in an important sense there are really many Copenhagen interpretations; or to put it another way there is no determinate or well-defined, coherent, and complete Copenhagen interpretation. The physicists who contributed to the Copenhagen interpretation displayed significant philosophical and interpretative differences in their specific contributions, so that what is taken to be the Copenhagen interpretation is actually a superposition of the disparate views of a group of physicists who include Bohr (complementarity), Heisenberg (uncertainty), Born (probability), and von Neumann (projection postulate), to name a few of the key players. Beller (1999) also argues that the Copenhagen interpretation is not a coherent framework but rather a compromise that was achieved among the key players." (Karen Barad, Meeting the Universe Halfway)
Every damn question is a false quadrilemma. It told me that I'm Nietzsche but the earlier test scored me at 0%...
I'm starting to think these internet tests might not be 100% reliable....
A minute later she suggests that we cannot explain spiritual healing, and at that point I had to make the call that this is all some BS. I've looked for evidence of spiritual healing and there's none that satisfies my standards. It's a shame though, I would love it if one of gwenyth paltro's 80$ healing chakra crystals really could cure cancer. Alack, alas...
[quote=Max Planck] Science advances one funeral at a time[/quote]
Well they talk about evolution but I don't know?
If by "talk about evolution" you mean "revolutionized our understanding of biological systems with a theory that has been scientifically validated in thousands of ways and to the medicinal benefit of billions", then yes.
Are you talking about acute care or allotropic care?
Over half of Americans have one form or another of a chronic degenerative disease.
Again, allotropic medicine has failed us miserably. The problem largely is the basis today is money and not care.
Evolution I believe self evident. The question is whether or not reductionism has true value.
If the problem is with money and not science, how does that help out your voodoo version of medicine?
Isn't rhinoceros horn pretty expensive?
I'll take reductionism over "IT WERE MAGIC!" any day. The steady progress of science is good evidence of the practical validity of this choice. You say "failed miserably" but I say "drastically increased quality and longevity of life, including a reduction in child morality rates". Shall we begin appealing to statistics or do you have a magic-8-ball on hand?
Ok.. that's your summation of whatever? What I'm talking about is a shift in paradigm in that the body works as a complete thing and not just individual parts. The shift is called integrative or functional medicine.
"Functional medicine". Great name. Did the spiritual elders come up with that :)
If you want to talk about the complexity and interconnectedness of the various components of human bodies, we don't need a "paradigm shift", we just need more sophisticated modeling skills and better approaches to understanding and investigating the nature of truly complex systems and the emergent phenomenon that are inexorably governed by smaller and smaller parts in the reductionist sense which we observe within them.
I'll call it "complexity science" and stick with the idea that we can actually try to understand complex systems, rather than basically giving up calling it irreducible and appealing to some twisted trial/error-tradition hocum approach and call it "functional medicine".
Show me the trials of your scientifically unexplainable spiritual healing, please...
Chronic Diseases: The Leading Causes of Death and Disability in the United States
The scientific consensus has literally been that these things are unhealthy for about 50 years...
I don't think you understand really what this is about though you're intent on arguing. Chronic degenerative disease generally results from a condition known as leaky gut (intestinal permeability) and it's through a cure for that condition that resolves a vast majority of our disease epidemic.
Your claim that gut-spilling is the cause of most of our diseases is far from established. If it is the case there's no reason we cant reductively get to the bottom of the mechanics of why.
Even if you're right you're not showing me anything like an "irreducible life force", you're actually arguing from materialism.
Bioenergetics plays a role in the physiology of man. Many things do. Our health is a function of mind, body, spirit and social interactions.
How could I possibly show you an irreducible life force?
One irreducible life force might be survival.
The bottom is reached with what's called tight junctions. Conditions that open these junctions when they're not supposed to be are the problem. These include but aren't limited to glyphosate, gluten, WGA (wheat germ agglutinin,) lectins, toxins and dysbiosis.
You are spot on, but are there no black or yellow people who also pull off this sort of bovine manure spreading? We're all one species, after all, and bullshit is in all our genomes. We don't want to short-change our colored brother's and sister's capacities to generate nonsense.
Actually, Jon, it's 100%. It's called life. It always ends in death. Bar none (If you want to make that your brand, it's –0).
Once an organism has achieved maximum physical condition it starts to deteriorate, just as a rock thrown up into the air rises until it can't rise an more, then it begins to fall back to earth. We all are going to die, no matter how you slice it, and it's a good thing. Otherwise we would have to put up with far more annoying people than we do now. There have been something like 100 billion people since we became people instead of primates, and most of these people have also been annoying, one way or another. It's what we do. It's what we are.
That's not correct. Chronic degenerative disease is not aging. It's called illness. Aging has a lot to do with mitochondrial health and fraying of dna telomeres.
"Leaky gut syndrome" isn't a diagnosis taught in medical school. Instead, "leaky gut really means you’ve got a diagnosis that still needs to be made,” Kirby (Cleveland Clinic) says. “You hope that your doctor is a good-enough Sherlock Holmes, but sometimes it is very hard to make a diagnosis.”
True enough, but where does leaky gut syndrome come in?
Correct... leaky gut is not a diagnosis but a condition.
Aging in the absence of degenerative diseases has a lot to do with the mitochondria, true enough, but the degenerative diseases like
• Alzheimer's disease (AD)[2][3]
• Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis[4] (ALS), a.k.a., Lou Gehrig's Disease
• Atherosclerosis[5][3]
• Cancer
• Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease (CMT)
• Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Chronic traumatic encephalopathy
• Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease
• Cystic Fibrosis
• Cytochrome C Oxidase Deficiency
• Diabetes (type II)
• Ehlers–Danlos syndrome
• Essential tremor
• Fibrodysplasia Ossificans Progressiva
• Friedreich's ataxia
• Heart disease
• Huntington's disease
• Infantile neuroaxonal dystrophy
• Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD)hola
• Keratoconus (KC)
• Keratoglobus
• Leigh syndrome
• Leukodystrophy
• Macular degeneration (AMD)
• Marfan's syndrome
• Measles encephalopathy
• Mitochondrial Myopathy
• Mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome
• Multiple sclerosis
• Multiple system atrophy
• Muscular dystrophy (MD)
• Neuronal ceroid lipofuscinosis
• Niemann–Pick disease
• Osteoarthritis
• Osteoporosis
• Parkinson's disease
• Primary pulmonary hypertension
• All Prion diseases
• Progressive supranuclear palsy
• Prostatitis
• Retinitis pigmentosa (RP)
• Rheumatoid arthritis
• Sandhoff Disease
• Spinal Muscular Atrophy
• Tay–Sachs disease
• Vascular dementia
have a tendency to lead to death-like problems, i.e., getting very sick and dying.
Leaky gut is a physical condition that results from environmental factors including diet, stress and toxins.
I always thought that conditions were diagnosable.
I'm not aware of any direct testing (that's non-invasive.)
Actually you can diagnose through symptoms.
Not explicitly, that is true. But it could very well be that consciousness is what collapses the system.
(Y)
I got Simone De Beauvoir...
Actually not all that inaccurate:
"You possess the spirit of Simone De Beauvoir! She was a powerful advocate of being your authentic self and rebelling against any force that tries to limit you. Society’s neglect and abuse of ‘the other’ is what prevents society from thriving. Rebelling against oppression of your authentic self is the way to true happiness."
The only issue I have is that 'the other' is actually society itself; 'the other' is actually 'the all'. Society eats itself, so long as 'the other' exists as a concept.
One of those :-| moments right there.
Me too. I've been looking for other avenues of wisdom.
I'm trying to develop a spiritual practice; a discipline in which I put into practice some of my philosophical positions, among other things.
I've been trying to focus on action, rather than concept.
Bitter much?
Alright, here's why I have trouble interacting with you: at first you say "Like maybe not being snappy and vicious?" in response to something I said to someone else, and that's a clear reference of when I told you to "fuck off". May I remind you, you then responded by calling me "a distasteful little wretch", and then told me to "go fornicate myself". Sounds snappy and vicious on your end as well.
Then you make a joke by bringing up Bitter Crank. As if your initial comment held no tension. This joke also distracts from the tension, which is your goal; that distraction is a leverage of power.
Of course your response will be that it was a joke, and I have high estrogen levels to respond in such a way; Clearly you were just joshing me.
When I read "Like maybe not being snappy and vicious?" I take that as a response to my character as expressed on this forum. I don't take it as a joke.
Quoting Thorongil
The way I see it, the issue in QM is that at that level, the act of measurement affects the properties of that which is measured. At a macro scale, measurements are invariant with respect to the act of measurement - meaning that the effect of measuring something has negligible effects on what is measured. If to measure the position of a ball on a billiard table, you must hit it with another ball and then deduce it based on the effects of the collision, it is clear that the act of determining the position changes other properties (like momentum). It is part and parcel of the set of issues that emerges from the fact that physics always looks for immanent explanations - in terms of other things in the world. So, for example, time, in order to exist (ie be measureable), requires at minimum the existence of some physical objects. Without physical objects, time doesn't exist, since it cannot be measured. Measuring time simply means finding one object, and taking its rate of change in some aspect and comparing it with the rate of change of another object. Cooking dinner takes 10 minutes means that the clock seconds hand moves 600 times around while dinner is completed once. It's an immanent measurement.
I can't see what "consciousness" collapses the system means?
Quoting Noble Dust
Stoicism?
A sense of humour should be a part of your mantra, but you unfortunately don't have one evidenced by getting all snappy. It just so happens that passive-aggressive people tend to find new ageism appealing and I tend to enjoy poking at passive-aggressive people.
win-win if you ask me.
I like you, which is saying something surely. Besides, I just spent the last three hours watching the best bollywood movie at the cinemas, filtered lens to smooth out the blemishes of the women, awkward sexual tension between two men having a bath together, glorified suicide ending, nothing can make me unhappy tonight!
I don't understand why the Hindu community were outraged with Padmaavat, makes absolutely no sense.
ummm that's not what I was asking...
Quoting TimeLine
Hmm, I never watched Bollywood, but I had many Indian friends who did. I heard those Bollywood movies are usually very long, and often involve some kind of love story that has to do with marriage :P
Quoting TimeLine
Hmmm 2018 movie, so definitely 0 chance that I would have seen it, granted that I watched probably 0 movies over the past 365 days :-O (yes, I do live under a rock :D )
What the fork is with your umming and humming by the way? :P
Quoting Agustino
Modern stoicism, more a fondness toward agency and our capacity to be virtuous depending on the state of our psychological health, but I still find myself returning back to Kanty Baby.
Have you watched Queen Seon Deok? ;)
Quoting TimeLine
It's called lacking self-control and not bothering to read what you wrote while multitasking.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't like modern. I like Roman!
Yeah, probably because you have a better chance at success within all its ambiguity; whatever happened to your Aristotlean affections?
Quoting Agustino
Well.
Quoting Agustino
No, but not too sure about Korean melodramas...
What is "success"? And anyway, my Aristotelian affections are still there, I was just saying that from the Stoics I prefer the Roman Stoics. Seneca, Epictetus and Aurelius.
Quoting TimeLine
Queen Seon Deok is literarily a masterpiece. One of the best ever, and certainly one of my favorites.
Quoting Agustino
You will probably like it, granted that the protagonist is a woman who is struggling for authenticity ( >:) ), and the antagonist is also a woman who is struggling for absolute political control. And the protagonist doesn't know who her real parents are, etc. It's a very good series, you will get addicted to it >:)
Success in becoming a stoic sage; Aristotle understands that there are a number of external factors that play a role in forming that virtuous character and that the conditions for a "good life" free from the burden of adversity include both a state of mind and position in an external world; to deny your sexual needs, for instance, or in the absence of healthy living conditions.
I think you are attracted to the ancient ascetic appeal and I understand that because I have a fondness for Confucianism and concepts like 'honour' and 'righteousness' which I hold incredibly close my integrity and way of living, something that is lost in our contemporary environment. But, when you get to the nuts and bolts of it, Stoicism is not really satisfactory for me.
Alright, i'm sold. I'll try and find it.