Is reason the slave of the passions?

Or can reason alone compel us to act?
Can behaviours be (ir)rational, and if so, what makes a behaviour (ir)rational?
Is it irrational to commit suicide, is it irrational to drink a litre of vodka a day?
A man can know all the facts about smoking, positive and negative, and yet still choose to smoke.
What if he doesn't know, or understand all the facts, is he irrational then?
Let's suppose if he knew, and understood all the facts, he would quit smoking, is his smoking irrational then?
I would say yes, I think this qualifies him as irrational, if you're thinking, feeling, saying or doing something you otherwise wouldn't do, if you knew and understood all the facts, then you're behaving irrationally.
But what if he comprehended the full implications of his 'detrimental' behaviour and all it entails, what then?

A man wants many things.
Among them, he wants food, clothing and shelter, companionship, prestige, to see beautiful sights and to hear beautiful sounds. What is their (food, clothing, etc) common demoninator, hmmm, is it survival, yes, then can it be said that above all things, man wants to survive, and thus if he chooses to do something that jeopardises his health and his life, and the health and life of that which he's dependent on, the life of his offspring, the life of his species, and places, things, animals and plants his species is currently dependent on, then can it be said that he is contradicting himself, that his behaviour is in conflict with nature, can ones behaviour be in conflict with their nature?
See, I think the will to live is an abstraction, an average or a tendency, man wants many things, some conflicting with the will to live, some not, and different men want different things. The will to live is merely one of many wills. Yes, perhaps it is erroeneous to speak of human will, for there is no will, but wills. This is why man is such a conflicted creature, schizophrenic, different parts of his brain are at war for dominanace, reason with emotions, emotions with appetites, appetites with reason, and even reason with reason, emotion with emotion and appetites with appetites, whichever will is more powerful, prevails, temporarily.

Let's ignore human nature for now, put it aside, for the sake of argument, let's suppose man has no nature, no will but to act in accordance with reason.. perhaps reason can compel us to act in accordance with it, even without it or the rest of us possessing a will, reason is itself compelling, or is it? Wipe away all our instincts, our passions, why act, why think or feel anything, can you think of a.. reason? I am a blank slate, possessing no nature whatsoever, no instincts, no passions, no wants, needs or will, all I possess is reason and awareness, I am aware of my existence, reason and awareness, and how they are fleeting in this world of change, in this world that doesn't seem to give a damn about them, now, what the hell do I do? I know I can do an infinite amount of things, from picking the lint out of my belling button, to fucking an alligator, from chewing carpet, to eating a salad, which of these four options is logical, rational, any, does it matter, I'm so used to the familiar emotional and carnal impulses directing my choices, directing, guiding me hither and thither, but I tell myself I don't need those things, they are relics from my primitive, ancestral past, I am civilized, I am rational godammit, I don't need my genes, I can invent memes, I am a blank slate.

Well, let's try to come up with an argument for acting, shall we. Should I eat the salad, or should I walk in a circle until I drop dead, decesisions, so many now without a nature. In a way, walking in a circle for as long as possible seems rational, it's consistent, predictable, a circle is an abstraction, perfect, ideal sort of things, so maybe I attempt to replicate its form, in addition to the triangle and the square, in everything I do. Is symmetry, consistency and preditability rational, or are they things in themselves, is amorphous blod irrational, I don't think so, what the hell does irrational even mean, I probably should have considered this in the opening paragraph, aw fuck.

I think rational is just an ability to put things together categorically or causally. Giraffes are more similar to elephants than they are to pineapples, if I rub to sticks together, fire, is that all their is to reason, can organizing phenomena categorically and sequentially give us reason for being, I don't see how it can. Reason is also about recognizing and avoiding contradiction, our noumena contradicting phenomena (bananas aren't grey) and our noumena contradicting our other noumena (bananas are not fruit), external and internal consistency. Can this be applied to behaviour, can we recognize contradictions in behaviour, and if we spot some, should we avoid them, and what if I don't feel like avoiding them, well, let's pretend we're a blank slate, I only feel when I have reason to, everything is innovative and memetic, nothing is inherited and genetic. Am I in any way, shape or form, if I choose to run in a circle until I drop dead, contradicting myself, and if so, why does it matter, does it inherently matter, does it absolutely matter? How can whether something mattering or not, or something matter, entail building rocket ships, eating bread and cleaning myself, or vice versa? Cars entail human beings, because we see human beings building cars, does meat entail pleasure, happiness, good, intrinsically, discounting all the times eating meat was accompanied by pleasure, happiness and good, would someone who's been kept inside a box all his life, never having seen anything other than himself and the box think human being upon seeing car, absurd, apples and oranges. This is in some ways a separate issue, this question is about, can one thing inherently be causally linked with another things, like the good with eating a salad, let's get back to reason and motivation.

Well, if I choose to run as opposed to eating, drinking and excersizing moderate, taking care of myself, eventually I'll die, is that itself a contradiction? One behaviour leads to life, one to death? One behaviour is self sustaining, the other isn't. One sustains the actor and the continuation of itself, if eat a salad, I'll be able to eat a salad again and again, if I choose to jump off a bridge, I will be terminating myself, and I will only be able to perform the action once, is this a contradiction? Why, logically, should actions, behaviour that is self sustaining be performed? Hmmm, here's a thought that comes to mind: because if you ceased to exist without any record, any trace of your existence, then everything you are and do, doesn't relaly exist, only actions that sustain your life, or at least have a chance of sustaining your life, and your offspring, your species, things similar in form and composition to you, really exist, all your cigarettes, all your alcohol, all your games and television, as enjoyable as they may be, won't be worth a damn in a hundred years, in a thousand years, they'll be good as gone, only things that can or will preserve themselves really exist. Haha, well, I hope you've enjoyed this little thought experiment as much as I have. There it is, that's the best I could come up with, is it logical, reasonable, I'll let you decide for yourself, please tell me what you think.

If I'm wrong, and no one can come up with something else, then it would seem reason is indeed the slave of the passions, it cannot motivate us, reason then would function sort of a like a calculator, a way of keeping track of all our various wills, the will to drink, to shit, to eat, to fuck, and then choosing when and where to satisfy them, try to keep everyone happy, all our emotions and appetites, trying to find ways of satisfying them all, or as many as possible without suffering any consequences, reprocussions, things we don't like befalling us.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

A couple of other interesting things to consider, is it reasonable for reason, well, perhaps reason or calculation is merely a tool of, let's call it the general (not to be confused with Rousseau's general will) or collective will, is it reasonable for the combined will, the super will (maybe I should just call it mind) to try and satisfy as many emotional and physical wills as possible? Maybe, maybe. I wonder if an argument could be formed for this, and what would it look like?

Does the mind desire anything, or do the emotions like to use reason, like to have knowledge, like to use imagination, does the mind will anything, or is it just a tool?

Can the mind say, well, I think my overall pleasure, would be greater if I did x, and still not do x, because its emotions desire to be satisfied immediately? Maybe the mind is ultimately in service of emotions and appetites, like mother serves child, but sometimes the mother must protect her child from itself, repressing, and sometime she caves, because of all the yelling, screaming, and constant struggling, against her better judgment.

If the mind does serve the passions, utilizing reason, imagination, and various other abilities at its disposal, do we do things and acquire things in order to experience pleasant emotions and evade unpleasant ones, or do we do things for their own sake, and acquire things for their own sake. Do I avoid the monster because it is scary, and I don't like feeling scared, or do I avoid the monster

Ah, the human mind, such a fascinating, complex, mysterious and intricate thing, I wish it were simpler though, in some ways, because I desire intellectual resolution, for me, questions are a means to an end, the end being answers and clairy, understanding everything readily and easily, ignorance and confusion is painful to me, so much pain.


*This is probably a little more analytic than Satyr's use to, he prefers the grand, sweeping narrative style of the Germans, but sometimes it necessary to break things up into little pieces in order to reassemble them into something more coherent.

Awareness is not necessarily helpful to activity.
Awareness is an a recognition of possibilities and the probabilities of each.
It can freeze the individual in procrastination and overly cautious analysis, reluctant to make a move.

The perceptual sum of a brain, let's say, was meant to service the needs of the organism. Once this survival tactic became dominant it began being superfluous. Now, once most of the basic needs were met the awareness turned inward...first into self-consciousness and then, due to this introspection, towards questioning self and survival altogether.
This is the nihilistic phase.
In this phase awareness, consciousness, became detrimental to survival.

To deal with this the mind sought or projected, by inventing it, meanings and motives and external authorities and goals.
This was the famous "resentiment" of the organism that, having introspected long and hard, discovers the essence of its Being is missing: it is no Being at all, but a Becoming...void of meaning and whose only purpose is to replicate itself continuously.

This proves to be a disturbing realization and most, the vast majority, reject it outright.
The rest take on the responsibility for themselves. having perceived the absence - in this case it is what I call the absent absolute - it begins to create it for itself. This is the creative genius of man....the masculine spirit.
Where the majority, the masses, rely on others to construct it for them, wanting only to follow to be absolved of all responsibility and risk and "free-will", the few construct it for themselves.

Where there is no meaning then they will construct one; where there is no purpose, outside biological imperatives, they will create it for themselves.
This is the rise of the idea(l).
Some adopt ideals others create them...but all have them and need them.

Then the question becomes: What is the highest ideal? What idea leads to a higher man: the surpassing of modern man?
I would say that each ideal is founded on the particular energies of a person and a people; taking Jung's perceptions it is a manifestation of organic weakness as it relates to environmental conditioning.
Since each bloodline is a product of specific historical events enabled within particular environmental conditions each bloodline creates and is attracted to a different type of ideal.

Reason, by itself, is not enough.

Quote :

Awareness is not necessarily helpful to activity.
Awareness is an a recognition of possibilities and the probabilities of each.
It can freeze the individual in procrastination and overly cautious analysis, reluctant to make a move.

...that sounds like a description of me.
I agree, nothing is necessarily helpful, everything is contextual, wings would impede a fish, fins would impede a bird.

Quote :

The perceptual sum of a brain, let's say, was meant to service the needs of the organism. Once this survival tactic became dominant it began being superfluous. Now, once most of the basic needs were met the awareness turned inward...first into self-consciousness and then, due to this introspection, towards questioning self and survival altogether.
This is the nihilistic phase.
In this phase awareness, consciousness, became detrimental to survival.

You're saying we're actually more in tune with ourselves when we're interacting with nature, when we're detatched from nature, from things that challenge us and threaten us, we become to detatched from ourselves, for we are but a response to nature, interaction with nature, when we isolate ourselves from our other, an environment that doesn't give a damn about us, we lose ourselves, we forget ourselves, like if I was placed in a box, and my every need was taken care of automatically, by machines, or something, I would forget I had needs, I wouldn't be interacting with anyone or anything, and it is in the interaction that things are defined, not in their isolation. For example, in order to know what something is, we fuck with it, in order to know how hard something is, we test it against other things, if the substance is isolated, taken out of context, it could be anything, it could be tall, short, wide narrow, how tall is a brick taken out of context, isolated from the world, what could be said about it. If I see a picture of brick surrounded by white or black, I have no way of knowing if it is a big brick or a small brick. So we lose knowledge of ourselves by not using ourselves, by not being threatened by an other, by being surrounded by things like us that comfort us, and were made for us. Things stand out against a background of otherness.
If I always had food readily available, I would not know the pain of hunger, I would forget how important food is to me, take it for granted, so having all our needs taken care of us, and being surrounded by a human friendly environment, can actually impede self knowledge, but then, it does give us time to organize, categorized and reflect on what we are, so perhaps a balance of danger and comfort affords us the best opportunity to know ourselves, if we are constantly threatened by the environment, we wouldn't have time to think about what we are, if we have to much time to think about what we are, then we wouldn't know what we are, because we wouldn't be acting and interacting with anything.

The will becomes less active when it is freed from nature, and all or most of its needs are taken care of, but the mind becomes more active. This too may be a survival strategy, when I'm in danger, I don't have time to think much, I must act and react, but when I'm free from immediate needs, I have to ponder, to plan, to strategize, to devout myself to the mind, as opposed to the emotions, and physical sensations.

Can the mind find reason for being without will, can the mind alone motivate us. What is more fundamental to our motivation, reason or mind, does reason merely inform us about the world, and the passions direct us, to and away from things, or can reason motivate us to, and does mind will automatically, irrationally, or can mind will rationally, can the will be one with reason, or are they separate?

Emotion can inform us about the world it seems, contrary to popular opinion, we often ask our emotions, whether this is true or not, or what this, or for probabilities, this is what is commonly refered to as intuition, so if emotion can inform us, and not just motivate us, perhaps mind can motivate us too, not merely inform us, and perhaps mind can do so rationally, manually, where as emotion automatically, instinctually.

Quote :

To deal with this the mind sought or projected, by inventing it, meanings and motives and external authorities and goals.
This was the famous "resentiment" of the organism that, having introspected long and hard, discovers the essence of its Being is missing: it is no Being at all, but a Becoming...void of meaning and whose only purpose is to replicate itself continuously.

It seems to me self replication is not just an accident, but maybe inherently meaningful, i don't know, i mean, if a behaviour doesn't replicate itself, if it is detrimental to the self and to the actor, then it is self defeating, self contradicting, it is a movement towards non existence, so it is nothing, only a towards continued existence could be meaningful, could be something, will towards non existence or a neutral will would be the same thing as nothing, it doesn't really exist, and therefore, it isn't really an option, it isn't really anything, choosing to drink a litre of vodka a day, or to smoke crack, or to snow board, or parachute out of an airplane, is like chosing nothing, it is nothing, excersising moderately and eating moderately is something, or may be something, because it is self supportive, it supports the actor and the behaviour, the behaviour can be continued indefinitely, behaviours that are self contradicting or self defeating are really an option for us, they don't really exist, they are nothing, only will to life is something, or at least has a chance of being something. I didn't get this argument from anyone else, I made it myself, do you like it, or do you think it is insufficient to convince us to only to perform life sustaining activities?

Quote :

This proves to be a disturbing realization and most, the vast majority, reject it outright.
The rest take on the responsibility for themselves. having perceived the absence - in this case it is what I call the absent absolute - it begins to create it for itself. This is the creative genius of man....the masculine spirit.
Where the majority, the masses, rely on others to construct it for them, wanting only to follow to be absolved of all responsibility and risk and "free-will", the few construct it for themselves.

It's only disturbing if it's doomed to failure, if it has a chance of succeeding, then it becomes substantive and gives us hope. This is why will enough is not alone, reason says, what is the point of pleasure or happiness alone, if it is fleeting, if it is not self sustaining, it will be gone tomorrow, only life sustaining behaviours have any meaning, can be said to exist, this knowledge of time and fleeting of things is what makes us human. The pleasure, happiness driven man cannot be said to be fully human. Then there is a higher stage of man that pursues pleasure, and happiness, and things that make him so, for the sake of things or for the sake of the pleasure and happiness that follows, whichever, but realizes that he may be happier in the long run if he forgoes some happiness now for the sake of future greater future happiness. It is this quantitive nature that makes humans humans, this knowledge of time and imperamence, the bible is a work of fiction, but nonetheless we can find great insight into the human condition therein, and God said that has put eternity into man's hearts, and this is what makes us mad, this knowledge of eternity, this knowledge that all pleasure, all our happiness, even if we can increase it in the long run, is meaningless, for tomorrow we die, and it will be gone, existed is not the same thing as existing, existed is probably as good as never having existed. In the long run, it matters not, all is bullshit, so then man invented religion to escape this fact, his awareness was good for his up until a point, but then once he realized he is doomed, and there is no guarentee his children will survive, this troubled him, so he invented heaven to comfort himself, though most ment went on in the world surviving and reproducing, some forsaked the world, and found solice purely in the, 'spirit'. But man has turned away from the spirit, and has sought solice here. He knows that someday this star will explode, and that human beings will cease to exist. He is again discomforted. Some, like you, have chose to go on anyway, to follow your instincts, in spite of objective futility, others have chose to die, to end it all, believing that life is futile. Some of these antiworld people have found solice in an afterlife, others have found solice in returning to nondistinctness, finding comfort in death, even though it is the opposte of what we're programmed to do, there is a certain comfort and tranquility in surrendering, I guess. Then there is a third path, this I call the transhumanist path, the idea that through reason, we can invent heaven, the soul, and God here, on planet earth, through technology we can correct our nature, make it whole, or closer to whole. For you, the transhumanist path and the spiritual and nihilistic paths are all rejections of the world, one in the same, you think the best we can hope for is a life filled with highs and lows here, ending in nothingness eventually, but going on in spite of this, not trying to correct it, and this could be called the realist path, as it is the most familiar, and the most likely, not hoping for too much, holding on to and preserving what we have, not trying to surrender to nothingness, not trying to overcoming it. The idealist path has a secular, materialist wing (transhumanist) and then there's the pessimist path, that surrenders to death. You see what is interesting is you equate somethingism with nothingism, as they are both otherworldly, what is not, you embrace becoming, this ambiguity, what is, and you don't try to fundamentlally improve it, you work within it.

What's also interesting is you equate the big bang/crunch with somethingism and the big freeze with nothingism. I think it may be the other way around, or it may be possible to view it from both angles. The big freeze is towards pluralism, and inactivity, the big bang, crunch, towards activity and monism. When you think about it, what is life but ego, pluralism, and the desire for preservation, inactivity preserves. Monism means nondistinctness, it is the death of particular things, it is chaos, like how ice shards are more orderly, left brain, reasonable, egocentric, then glass of water. it all fits, doesn't it, like parts of giant puzzle. The right brain, the material, the physical, is a lesser form of life. First matter separates and becomes to distinct, after the big bang/crunch, substances are born, where as before there was only one substance. Metals are separated from each other, zinc, iron, gold, silve, tin copper, and separated from more organic materials. Sparseness gives rise to distinction, in monism, there is chaos, activity, things don't have a definite location, like in the quantum world, something can be both here and there, this and that, the wholistic, infinite quantum world is pure garbage, nothing can be said about it, but then things developed definition, and they cannot occupy the same space, separation occurs.

Then atoms form compounds, of which there is thousands, millions of combinations, and mechanical mixes of elements and compounds formed larger objects, and human beings, this organism, is pure ego, and so are plants and animals, but humans are the highest forms of ego, for the desire to preserve themselves forever, where as animals only preserve themselves in the moment, you see reason is one with ego, and look how it divides and cuts everything up into neat bits, where as the right brain content with chaos, assymetry, ambiguity, confusion, disorder, lives and feels in the moment, and look how niggers and primitives are more bodity, and right brained, you see we white males are the ultimate form of order. This is not to say females and niggers do not desire to preserve themselves too, there nihilism tends towards returning to nature, our nihilism, as you put it, tends toward somethingism, but I am not so ready to equate the two as you do, although I understand fully the genius of your position, and how well you defend it, part of me cannot accept what is, and strives for the absolute, but I see now how the chaos of postmodernism, and rock music, and dada and the mindlessness of pop culture is a surrendering to chaos, void and nothingness.

The female desires life too, unless she becomes suicidal, but she is more will to tolderate disorder, and uniformity, you see disorder and uniformity are actually the same thing, egoism and rationalism are one, irrationalism and altruism are one.

The left wing of the transhumanists believes we must tolerate a great deal of the more material, physical among us, and individuals less like the self to progress, where as the right wing of the transhumanist believes we can be indifferent or destroy the more material among us, and those more material then ourselves, that we don't need them, and they may inhibit us from achieving our goals, replication and immortality.

Life is this drive to perpetuate the self, to create more of the self, heaven is me, eternally existent, more and more of myself, I am my own God, it is not pluralism, or indistinct monism, it is distinct me, and the more creatures are like me, and the more they are able to survive, the more I should love them, this is rational, this is the masculine ideal, I tolder things unlike me and lesser than me, less able to survive, only out of necessity, the goal of of lifeforms, organisms, is to destroy all other forms, and only tolerate ones very similar to oneself, and that are able to perpetuate themselves, this is reason of the universe, and it is inherently reasonable, all others wills, like gravity, repulsion, and the will to eat cake, drink and be merry, are meaningless, because they don't propegate themselves, so life is the ultimate ego, and it is towards itself. Just as matter becomes distinct, perhaps during the big bang/crunch, the substance of consciousness was indistinct, and now consciousness is become less distinct, and fight with other consciousnesses for distinction and preservation, and propegation, if it is a separate substance, I'm not sure of this, but just because you believe it is, doesn't necessarily make you a monist, I want to preserve my atman, I do not want to become a brahman, I want to preserve my atman forever, death to the big bang, the quantum world is sin, long live the big freeze and my being, not my becoming.

Quote :

Where there is no meaning then they will construct one; where there is no purpose, outside biological imperatives, they will create it for themselves.
This is the rise of the idea(l).
Some adopt ideals others create them...but all have them and need them.

Then the question becomes: What is the highest ideal? What idea leads to a higher man: the surpassing of modern man?
I would say that each ideal is founded on the particular energies of a person and a people; taking Jung's perceptions it is a manifestation of organic weakness as it relates to environmental conditioning.
Since each bloodline is a product of specific historical events enabled within particular environmental conditions each bloodline creates and is attracted to a different type of ideal.

Reason, by itself, is not enough.

Well, I gave you an ideal, but it would be foolish of me not to acknowledge the real, which is what you represent, where as our friend in the dungeon represents the ideal, perhaps I will choose the middle path, between you, the real, and him, the ideal, a cautious idealism.
I think reason is not enough, but perhaps it is more than you think. I don't hate my material or physical self, it cannot be overcome so easily, even if I did hate it, but I put emphasis on the left brain, and on the brain, where as females, children, negros and retards and mediocrities emphasise the material and ephemeral.
Material is more egocentric than quantum, quantum is the ultimate non distinction, where as material is distinct in substance, but not in form, although planetforms and starforms and mountainforms can maintain themselves for quite some time, they do not willfully desire to maintain their forms, and that is why lifeforms are the ultimate form of egocentrism, maybe the universe is moving towards greater egoism, and competitions for survival. Well, I hope it is me, and things like me, but may the best ego prevail.

The Big Bang and the Big Crunch (big freeze, as you call it) are one and the same event viewed from a different vantage point.
It is the nearly completed singularity, the near absolute which never does or can ever go all the way from Becoming to Being.
For me its completion is not even desirable, making god an anathema.

The big bang (from a hot monism) and the big crunch (to a hot monism) are the same event, but the big freeze (from/to a cold pluralism) is not the same event, the big freeze is the increased expasion of the universe, the big bang/crunch are the result of ubiquitous contraction.

So do you agree with everything else I said?

For me this expansion is a towards the Big Crunch.
Expansion of space simply denotes an increase in possibilities, if we consider space as possibility projected.

-I also do not believe in "substance"...I am no Spinozist.
There is only activity, energy, and substance or thingness or matter are ways of making it comprehensible.
My views are a bit counter-intuitive as I am trying to bridge the gap between the abstraction and the real....or the noumenon and the phenomenon.

I think only art can do this and even then it can only do this indirectly.

-Emotions are, for me, a nexus between the intuitive and the conscious...or mind and body.

-Consciousness always begins as an outwardly focused sensual awareness. One is first aware of otherness before this can turn inward or find self through this otherness.
The primary function of consciousness, the reason it evolves, is to facilitate survival by distinguishing and discriminating what is other than self.
Edible/inedible...is the first concern then friend or foe...dualism because the first step is that of binary logic...an either/or scenario.
For me it is the result of a simple on/off mechanism in the brain.
On...means flow....off means no flow.

Flow of what?
Flow of an energy pulse through a neural cluster.
This basic mechanism then evolves in the conception of positive/negative...good/evil...and all the subsequent dualities.
In fact there is only degree, as the energy pulse is flowing through a network of neurons which are themselves in a state of flux, albeit at a slower rate...ergo they are more "substantial" more "solid" in comparison to the faster flowing bio-energy pulse.
The totality of these neural flows is what is called thinking or consciousness.
One part of the brain, an agency, rules or collects and integrates all these energy pulses and the stimulation they produce in the neural network while other agencies regulate and control that agency and so on....inevitably there is a looping effect, as the same agency which is controlled and regulated is also controlling and regulating the agency doing so.

To escape the Solipsism the mind has sensual input...it is the sense data being continuously collected and integrated into mental models, abstractions, which break the looping cycle, forcing the mind to face outwards, as a matter of survival.
Yet the attraction to self-containment, which is delusion and a detachment form reality, is a goal, as it represents the completion of the becoming as a Being.

Reason is the slave of passion, but passion is a most benevolent master.

SMILEYFACE

phoneutria wrote:

Reason is the slave of passion, but passion is a most benevolent master.

It's the lack of passion that drives you away from the 'real' philosophy forums.

Vanitas wrote:

phoneutria wrote:

Reason is the slave of passion, but passion is a most benevolent master.

It's the lack of passion that drives you away from the 'real' philosophy forums.

Bingo!!!

It's the absence of passion in her life that brings her hear, but then when she taste's it she runs off all hurt.

For her passion must be benevolent, calm, soothing, "positive" or else it is vile.

Passion can be benevolent or malevolent, we love and we hate, we hope and we fear. In fact, I'd say there's something violent about even the most 'positive' and 'benevolent' of passions, a certain uneasiness, a restlessness, an imposition on the world, where as the absence of emotion is completely docile and calm, passive and tranquil, at ease with the world and everyone in it. Passion is inherently hateful, even love and hope are hateful.

if you love someone, your forcing things to go a certain way, you're exerting your will and your personality against the world, forcing things, dominating and coordinating them. This stems from discontentment, a fundamental disatisfaction with the way things are, a rebellion against what is and what otherwise would be.

In fact, I'd say benevolence, creation and preservation, are even more violent and assertive than their emotional counterparts, malevolence and destruction. Destruction is easy.

There is no birth without blood, you can't build without 1st tearing down, how else would you acquire the necessary raw materials for construction. There are no immaculate conceptions, creation doesn't occur ex nihilo like it does in Jewish fables, every creation is a violent act. You want peace, passivity and harmony- think nothing, feel nothing, say nothing and above all, do nothing.. care about nothing.

This is why the wise build cautiously, they spend more time in their thoughts than in their hearts and in their bodies, they're painfully aware of the fact that for everything gained, something, somewhere, was almost certainly lost, that for every modern 'convenience' and hedonic, material acquisition, blood had to be shed, sacrifices had to be made. The fool may be knowledgeable and scientific, but he builds aimlessly, recklessly. He has no reverence for the past and he fails to count the cost, that is, until it is too late. Some feelings are better left unfelt, some desires are better repressed, and sometimes it pays to do nothing.

This is what it means for the mind (aristocracy) to be in control of the body (democracy). Logos governing pathos.

There's no such thing as pure benevolence, benevolence and malevolence are one, either you have both or you have neither, or a little of both. One creatures loss is anothers gain. The ldealist believes we can have our proverbial cake and eat it, the realist realises some sacrifices and compromises are inevitable, the question being when and what sacrifices should be made. Thus there is no 'good' and 'evil', good and evil are hoaxes, life, death, good, evil, they're all intimately intertwined, but since the Jews and Zarathustra, there has been this talk of, 'separation', as if we could carve up reality into distinct bits, so we wouldn't have to experience the double edged sword of reality, we could pick and choose, we could 'correct' and 'heal' nature.

Your opinions are stupid/common/pointless.

:]

really, why? btw, i wrote more above.

eyesinthedark wrote:

Passion can be benevolent or malevolent, we love and we hate, we hope and we fear.

And these words are empty/meaningless. Emotions are like your stupid opinions.

Quote :

In fact, I'd say there's something violent about even the most 'positive' and 'benevolent' of passions, a certain uneasiness, a restlessness, an imposition on the world, where as the absence of emotion is completely docile and calm, passive and tranquil, at ease with the world and everyone in it. Passion is inherently hateful, even love and hope are hateful.

Define 'love', define 'hate'...
Passion is an energy. You're wooshing to the left, then to the right, then to the right and then the left again as if you're actually making a point.

eyesinthedark wrote:

if you love someone, your forcing things to go a certain way, you're exerting your will and your personality against the world, forcing things, dominating and coordinating them. This stems from discontentment, a fundamental disatisfaction with the way things are, a rebellion against what is and what otherwise would be.

False. opinionated, and stupid...

eyesinthedark wrote:

In fact, I'd say benevolence, creation and preservation, are even more violent and assertive than their emotional counterparts, malevolence and destruction. Destruction is easy.

How so? Why? You can't go on declaring opposites to the typical way of things without an explanation.

eyesinthedark wrote:

There is no birth without blood, you can't build without 1st tearing down, how else would you acquire the necessary raw materials for construction. There are no immaculate conceptions, creation doesn't occur ex nihilo like it does in Jewish fables, every creation is a violent act.

So all creative origins must be known, or else they don't exist, and all creativity is violent....
brilliant.

Quote :

You want peace, passivity and harmony- think nothing, feel nothing, say nothing and above all, do nothing.. care about nothing.

This is the only coherent thing you've said so far....
and even then there are exceptions...

eyesinthedark wrote:

This is why the wise build cautiously, they spend more time in their thoughts than in their hearts and in their bodies

Separation that may or may not be there...to the wise.

Quote :

The fool may be knowledgeable and scientific, but he builds aimlessly, recklessly. He has no reverence for the past and he fails to count the cost, that is, until it is too late.

Even in recognizing this he may continue. It's like saying an act of violence or cruelty is always done by a reckless and ignorant barbarian with no conscience. Or that it is somehow always of no use or value to the future. That's not true either.

Quote :

Some feelings are better left unfelt, some desires are better repressed, and sometimes it pays to do nothing.

But then you get docile and sheepish, remember? :p

It doesn't matter, there's always a problem, when you patch up one hole, another arises, but we go on anyway, don't we? And in the end,all ends up the same. In all that change, no significant change actually occurred, nothing was accoplished, for every victory, a defeat, but go on thinking that your life is progressing, and that things will work out in the end.

eyesinthedark wrote:

There's no such thing as pure benevolence, benevolence and malevolence are one, either you have both or you have neither, or a little of both. One creatures loss is anothers gain. The ldealist believes we can have our proverbial cake and eat it, the realist realises some sacrifices and compromises are inevitable, the question being when and what sacrifices should be made. Thus there is no 'good' and 'evil', good and evil are hoaxes, life, death, good, evil, they're all intimately intertwined, but since the Jews and Zarathustra, there has been this talk of, 'separation', as if we could carve up reality into distinct bits, so we wouldn't have to experience the double edged sword of reality, we could pick and choose, we could 'correct' and 'heal' nature.

There is much separation. There are many unknown things. There are light and dark spots.
The Jews and 'Zarathustra' have not denied you of this.
There is separation or there is no definition.
No words.
No meaning.
No connection without disconnection.
If anything they've made your life more meaningful.
To say 'oh the fuck with it'...have no customs, morals, language is to go back to a primal state of being.
Do you understand how many books they carry, how many hidden occult scripts they possess, how much they add to their reality and keep only to themselves?
Judaism is so extremely complex, elevated, supernatural...
Just the Hebrew letters hint at other worlds.



Certain things can be separated, defined, discussed & used to order society. There is such a thing as making things easier or harder depending on the conditions. You can't tell me there is no charity, no right or wrong thing to do according to a given situation.


Everything is conditional and works when the formula is correct.

eyesinthedark wrote:

It doesn't matter, there's always a problem, when you patch up one hole, another arises, but we go on anyway, don't we? And in the end,all ends up the same. In all that change, no significant change actually occurred, nothing was accoplished, for every victory, a defeat, but go on thinking that your life is progressing, and that things will work out in the end.

You live in air conditioning right fuckwit?
Go back to Africa and die of AIDS :p
Nothing works.
There are no morals.
Rape some babies.



Oh wait, nothing changes either. It all stays the same. What am I saying? There's no difference between the West and an undeveloped dirt lot.

Go to university, to college, and tell yourself it will be worth it. All that suffering, all that hard work and effort, all that as kissing, all that programming, a surplus or a profit will be made, but it's just trade offs, you give up something to get, what if the economy implodes, what if all these classes are teaching you shit there isn't going to be a market for? What if you can't pay off your loan, what if all that brain washing was there just to teach you to be a good slave, and not to think outside the box, to specialise, instead of generalising or becoming a creative entrepreneur?

Any monkey (from Africa) can enter a college and 'suffer'.
I'm not talking about that either.
I'm saying that there are ground rules that are in place for a reason.
The creation of them is not 'stupid' or used to make you into a slave.
If you want a taste of slavery, go to a country/area without any.

Tell yoursel that you're worth it, and that you deserve that cell phone, and those head phones, and that computer, and let your little daughter jessica spend 6, 8 hours in front of that cumputer, and two hours on that cell phone, and 3 hours with the music phones plugged into her little ears, little did you know her tiny little brain was being bombarded with harmful emf waves all day, that will give her cancer when shes 20, and significantly impair her iq, not to mention her ears and her eyes, and how she will become autistic, and not learn how to communicate outside of her gadgets or develop intimate, emotional bonds with humans.