Know Thyself

Nothing in Excess
 
HomePortalFAQMemberlistSearchRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Random Questions Box

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
AuthorMessage
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Sat Oct 04, 2014 10:56 pm

If you posit eudaimonia, i.e. specific chemical configuration of your brain, as a goal then you are NOT going to care if your happiness is self-deceptive or not, since a brain isolated from the rest of the world HAS NO CONCEPTION OF SELF-DECEPTION. The concept of self-deception acquires meaning only once you posit something outside of your brain as a goal.

Once you posit something outside of your brain as a goal, then happiness is no longer a superordinate goal, but a subordinate one.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Sun Oct 05, 2014 8:03 pm

Need is the sensation of Flux - the interpretation of an ordering (organism) experiencing (inter)activity as a perpetual pull/push, confronting this emergent unity (order).
Suffering is need left unsatisfied - multiplied by time - to the point where it begins threatening the organism.
Suffering is the interpretation of Flux pulling the organism apart.

This need creates care in the organism.
The organism must self-sustain, so as to then continue becoming as an emergent unity. The connection of the organism to the past,, projected as possibility towards the future, makes it the manifestation of this past in the present (apparent) confronted by this immediate (inter)activity we call environment, world, reality, appearance (phenomenon).

If successful in this self-sustenance the organism produces excess.
This excess can be directed towards growth, or cellular division.

In more complex unities this excess results in libidinal energies: the creative, procreative feeling of excess wanting to expand, express, explode, relieve the pressures being produced.

Two different needs:
Primary needs which feed self-maintenance.
Secondary needs which are the byproduct of the first.

The former assimilate, accumulate, appropriate...the latter expunge, explode, expand.
The pull creating the circumstances for a push.

Pleasure is the sensation of need being alleviated, reduced, to a point where it drops out of consciousness, or where it is replaced by a greater need, which takes its places in the forefront of the conscious mind's focus.

Anything else that can be said about pleasure has to do with psychology and abstraction.
Pleasure turned into an object/objective is no more than the focus on the byproduct of the alleviation of a need, rather than on the need itself.
The object/objective can become an idea(l), and like all object/objectives it is projected as a longing, a possibility/probability, as a method of orienting the organism - giving it a "towards".

If it is used as a nihilistic object/objective (ideal) then the object/objective becomes a telos, or a final destination...an absolute promising cessation, completion, finality, an end.
In other words as a rejection, antithesis, of the real, which is experienced as need/suffering.

Other than that, for me, the subject is mundane, turned into something more by those with ulterior motives, they may not be aware of themselves...because the object/objective, taken as an idea(l), defines the individual who accepts it, or uses it as an orientation projection.
The word, symbol, the individual uses to project as the object/objective that will direct its actions, that will motivate it, reveals the organisms core, defining, need.

Psychology being a organ hierarchy - just as a SuperOrganism is defined by its own institutional hierarchies - expresses itself by the hierarchies (inter)actions and internal structural dynamics.
The brain, being the hub of the nervous system, and being affected by internal and external (inter)actions interprets these internal hierarchies in relation to the external ones.
This creates the organism's personality, as the relationship of character (organ hierarchies) (inter)acting with worlds (hierarchy of unknown forces - otherness).

The projection, therefore, is the noumenon, the noetic abstraction, that relates to the phenomenon in a positive or a negative way.
The word used, and what it implies, exposes the organism's dominant organ, or the internal organ hierarchy, as this relates to the world which remains indifferent to it.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Henry Quirk

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 328
Join date : 2014-06-03
Age : 55
Location : everywhere, doin' too much

PostSubject: inspired by comments elsewhere Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:01 pm

If a man writes extensively about, say, the domesticating of a population does this mean the man feels domesticated, or, could it mean he -- secure in his wildness -- simply reports on what he observes?

If a body is trapped in a roach-infested house, does that body's occupation with roaches make that body a roach?

If a man comments approvingly about the directing, control, and possession of one's self does this mean the man is a slave, or, can it mean the man -- secure in his self-possession -- simply notices the many who are slaves?

An internal 'lack' (lack of wildness, for example, lack of self-direction, for another) can surely direct a mind...an external lack (lack of wild company for the wild man, the presence of so many slaves for the self-owned) can as well.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:22 pm

Henry Quirk wrote:
If a man writes extensively about, say, the domesticating of a population does this mean the man feels domesticated, or, could it mean he -- secure in his wildness -- simply reports on what he observes?
Either, or both.

The threat does not immediately mean the fact.
If I see a flood coming, this does not mean I am already drowned.

Henry Quirk wrote:
If a body is trapped in a roach-infested house, does that body's occupation with roaches make that body a roach?
If one is trapped then cockroaches become his primary concern.

Henry Quirk wrote:
If a man comments approvingly about the directing, control, and possession of one's self does this mean the man is a slave, or, can it mean the man -- secure in his self-possession -- simply notices the many who are slaves?
If a man comments on the animals populating his forest, and describes them as predators and prey, is he not both threatened and describing a circumstance as a detached observer?

Indifference is power....an omniscient Being would care not.

Henry Quirk wrote:
An internal 'lack' (lack of wildness, for example, lack of self-direction, for another) can surely direct a mind...an external lack (lack of wild company for the wild man, the presence of so many slaves for the self-owned) can as well.
To seek company in a hostile environment is also a need, based no a lack.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Henry Quirk

avatar

Gender : Male Virgo Posts : 328
Join date : 2014-06-03
Age : 55
Location : everywhere, doin' too much

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 2:25 pm

Agreed.

Simply noting (and commenting on) what I take as a simplistic assessment in another thread.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 3:04 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
If you posit eudaimonia, i.e. specific chemical configuration of your brain, as a goal then you are NOT going to care if your happiness is self-deceptive or not, since a brain isolated from the rest of the world HAS NO CONCEPTION OF SELF-DECEPTION. The concept of self-deception acquires meaning only once you posit something outside of your brain as a goal.

Once you posit something outside of your brain as a goal, then happiness is no longer a superordinate goal, but a subordinate one.

The problem is in your translation of the word eudaimonia as in happiness. It is a little more complex than that.
For the purposes of brevity, it is a little more accurate to think of it as "a life worth living".

You can make a case for one to say that he can live a life worth living entirely inside of his own head, and I would agree with you that that person is decadent... a solipsist... a bit of a pig.

However, as a theory of conduct, and this is a theme that is constant in classic philosophy, you may see the argument being made in many different writings with the general idea is that the true state of eudaimonia can only be reached through a path of virtue.

Therefore eudaimonia, though it may be a feeling inside you, it is a direct reflection of a condition in the outside world.

And therefore, there is no direct correlation between hedonism and decadence.
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:31 pm

Quote :
For the purposes of brevity, it is a little more accurate to think of [eudaimonia] as "a life worth living".

Can't you see that your answer to the question "what is the purpose of life?" is a non-answer? The purpose of life, you say, is simply to live the best possible life. But don't you see the circularity? The question is "what is the best life?" and you answer this by saying "well, the best life is . . . the best life!"

Quote :
You can make a case for one to say that he can live a life worth living entirely inside of his own head, and I would agree with you that that person is decadent... a solipsist... a bit of a pig.

Everyone agrees with that. Even completely delusional people agree that delusion is decadent, all the while, of course, thinking they are not delusional/decadent.

Quote :
However, as a theory of conduct, and this is a theme that is constant in classic philosophy, you may see the argument being made in many different writings with the general idea is that the true state of eudaimonia can only be reached through a path of virtue.

It's a sophisticated defense mechanism at work.

It goes like this: first, they think that happiness is the ultimate goal. Then, once happiness is exposed to be merely a signifier, they change their claim to something like "well, the ultimate goal is not ANY happiness, but the REAL, the HIGHER, happiness". But by discriminating between various feelings of happiness THEY DO NOT cease to be hedonists who value signifier over signified.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:49 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Quote :
For the purposes of brevity, it is a little more accurate to think of [eudaimonia] as "a life worth living".

Can't you see that your answer to the question "what is the purpose of life?" is a non-answer? The purpose of life, you say, is simply to live the best possible life. But don't you see the circularity? The question is "what is the best life?" and you answer this by saying "well, the best life is . . . the best life!"

It is not so because what it means to live a life worth living is open.
I would assume that to you a life worth living would be one that perpetuates your kind and therefore accomplishes to meet your motivating force, which is the fear of extinction.
If you have reached the end of your life being able to witness your progeny thriving, you can say to yourself that you have reached eudaimonia.

Quote :

Quote :
You can make a case for one to say that he can live a life worth living entirely inside of his own head, and I would agree with you that that person is decadent... a solipsist... a bit of a pig.

Everyone agrees with that. Even completely delusional people agree that delusion is decadent, all the while, of course, thinking they are not delusional/decadent.

Very well.

Quote :

Quote :
However, as a theory of conduct, and this is a theme that is constant in classic philosophy, you may see the argument being made in many different writings with the general idea is that the true state of eudaimonia can only be reached through a path of virtue.

It's a sophisticated defense mechanism at work.

It goes like this: first, they think that happiness is the ultimate goal. Then, once happiness is exposed to be merely a signifier, they change their claim to something like "well, the ultimate goal is not ANY happiness, but the REAL, the HIGHER, happiness". But by discriminating between various feelings of happiness THEY DO NOT cease to be hedonists who value signifier over signified.

Regardless, you seem to have determined that not all hedonists are decadent, and therefore you cannot state a direct correlation between hedonism and decadence.
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:53 pm

Once you start discriminating between higher and lower forms of happiness, there's no longer any reason to speak of happiness as a goal. The goal of life, then, becomes a state which is labeled "the highest form of happiness", a state which no longer has to be called "a state of happiness". Why is this so? Because "happiness" is a state that is ABOVE our current state and "unhappiness" is a state that is BELOW our current state, meaning that, any state can be "happiness" or "unhappiness" depending on whether one reaches it by RISING or by FALLING.

People who think in terms of higher and lower forms of happiness are almost certainly decadent in a sense that their value judgments are fucked up.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 7:03 pm

Quote :
It is not so because what it means to live a life worth living is open.

That's what I'm saying. A non-answer is an open answer, whereas all real answers are closed answers.

I mean, how can you seriously be proud of your answer if it goes something like "the goal of life is to pick any goal you want and attain it." Wow, what an answer! Thanks for telling me that!

Such answers are considered to be real, i.e. useful, answers only by decadents, by people who are TIRED OF THINKING AND LIFE and who are desperately in need to get rid of some responsibility, to relax the bow, to let go of some weights. Once the decision making process (the question "what is the wisest way to live my life?") becomes too difficult one becomes motivated to deny its value and simply let go of all the weights and go back to "anything goes".
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:32 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Once you start discriminating between higher and lower forms of happiness, there's no longer any reason to speak of happiness as a goal. The goal of life, then, becomes a state which is labeled "the highest form of happiness", a state which no longer has to be called "a state of happiness". Why is this so? Because "happiness" is a state that is ABOVE our current state and "unhappiness" is a state that is BELOW our current state, meaning that, any state can be "happiness" or "unhappiness" depending on whether one reaches it by RISING or by FALLING.

People who think in terms of higher and lower forms of happiness are almost certainly decadent in a sense that their value judgments are fucked up.

Happiness is not a good word.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 8:44 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Quote :
It is not so because what it means to live a life worth living is open.

That's what I'm saying. A non-answer is an open answer, whereas all real answers are closed answers.

I mean, how can you seriously be proud of your answer if it goes something like "the goal of life is to pick any goal you want and attain it." Wow, what an answer! Thanks for telling me that!

Such answers are considered to be real, i.e. useful, answers only by decadents, by people who are TIRED OF THINKING AND LIFE and who are desperately in need to get rid of some responsibility, to relax the bow, to let go of some weights. Once the decision making process (the question "what is the wisest way to live my life?") becomes too difficult one becomes motivated to deny its value and simply let go of all the weights and go back to "anything goes".


That answer is open for the sake of brevity. The actual answer is a separate subject.
Since virtue is a condition to eudaimonia, the closed answer is that a life worth living is a life of virtue.
Then, of course, you have to define virtue.

I should not be having to write this down over here...
Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:06 pm

phoneutria wrote:
Happiness is not a good word.

Orly? So how about the word pleasure? Since "hedone" means pleasure in Greek. Is that not good enough for you either? What are you going to come up with next?

Back to top Go down
View user profile
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:11 pm

Quote :
That answer is open for the sake of brevity. The actual answer is a separate subject.
Since virtue is a condition to eudaimonia, the closed answer is that a life worth living is a life of virtue.
Then, of course, you have to define virtue.

So hedonism is a school of thought in which the best life is thought to be the life worth living lol and the life worth living is the life of virtue. Jesus fucking Christ.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Æon
Wyrm
avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 1900
Join date : 2014-03-25
Location : Outside

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:24 pm

Go easy on her, she's just a girl.

Start thinking of females as having a gigantic hole inside their heads and brains, empty. Girls need to be instructed in very simple language, slowly and patiently, about philosophical concepts.

You need to remember that philosophy is inherently 100% male endeavor, where females are merely along for the ride and enjoy spectating, not participating.


Not only do females have a hole between their thighs, but they have a mental vagina too which is just as vacuous if not more so.

A female receives ideas as she receives sperm, in the same fashion
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:36 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
phoneutria wrote:
Happiness is not a good word.

Orly? So how about the word pleasure? Since "hedone" means pleasure in Greek. Is that not good enough for you either? What are you going to come up with next?


How about we stick with eudaimonia?
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 12:38 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:
Quote :
That answer is open for the sake of brevity. The actual answer is a separate subject.
Since virtue is a condition to eudaimonia, the closed answer is that a life worth living is a life of virtue.
Then, of course, you have to define virtue.

So hedonism is a school of thought in which the best life is thought to be the life worth living lol and the life worth living is the life of virtue. Jesus fucking Christ.

Yes.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 2:04 pm

Read this if you haven't already... in fact read it again as if you did, you forgot everything... or don't, I don't care.

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

Back to top Go down
Magnus Anderson

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 164
Join date : 2014-08-27
Location : Serbia

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:15 pm

phoneutria wrote:
How about we stick with eudaimonia?

How about I stick it up your bum? Either respond properly or go fuck yourself.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:27 pm

Weininger, Otto wrote:
Woman reaches as far as desire, but not to value. She reaches as far as sympathy, but not respect.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:30 pm

How about I cease to waste my time humoring your utter lack of very basic classical philosophy education?
Back to top Go down
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 6:32 pm

Yockey, Francis Parker wrote:
The abolition of quality smothers the exceptional man in his youth and turns him into a cynic.


Socrates wrote:
Worthless people live only to eat and drink; people of worth eat and drink only to live.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:23 pm

Socrates wrote:
Such was the natural nobility of this city, so sound and healthy was the spirit of freedom among us, and the instinctive dislike of the barbarian, because we are pure Hellenes, having no admixture of barbarism in us.
For we are not like many others, descendants of Pelops or Cadmus or Egyptus or Danaus, who are by nature barbarians, and yet pass for Hellenes, and dwell in the midst of us; but we are pure Hellenes, uncontaminated by any foreign element, and therefore the hatred of the foreigner has passed unadulterated into the life-blood of the city.

Socrates wrote:
Most excellent man, are you not ashamed to care for acquisition of wealth and for reputation and honor, when you neither care nor take any thought for wisdom and truth and the perfection of your soul?

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Satyr
Daemon
avatar

Gender : Male Pisces Posts : 15229
Join date : 2009-08-24
Age : 51
Location : Flux

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Wed Oct 08, 2014 7:28 pm

Schopenhauer, Aurthur wrote:
Stupid people are generally malicious for the very same reason as the ugly and the deformed. Similarly, genius and sanctity are akin.
However simpleminded a saint may be, he will nevertheless have a dash of genius in him; and however many errors of temperament, or of actual character, a genius may possess, he will still exhibit a certain nobility of disposition, by which he shows his kinship with the saint.

Orwell, George wrote:
Men can only be happy when they do not assume that the object of life is happiness.

Orwell, George wrote:
The very concept of objective truth is fading out of the world. Lies will pass into history.

_________________
γνῶθι σεαυτόν
μηδέν άγαν
Back to top Go down
View user profile http://satyr.canadian-forum.com/
Ephemeron

avatar

Gender : Male Posts : 37
Join date : 2012-09-22
Location : down here

PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box Thu Oct 09, 2014 9:04 pm

In a locked thread in which no one may participate, Satyr said:

"Because the mind can only assimilate what is inferior to it, beneath it, lower than it... just as a predator can only feed upon what is weaker than it."

This view is not only false it is absurd, although you are right to relate the mind with the predator. A predator is a unique aspect of life. It may feed upon both its equal and its superior as well as those below it and in the same way the mind, also a predator can assimilate from above as it can below and this occurs beyond any ability. That is the mind comprehends, whether or not one knows how to receive the information is another matter. The predator kills and feeds when it is necessary it is not limited by other than what presents itself as food. Circumstance and blind chance feed the wolf on one occasion it is hare on another, bear.

A Question.

Is Schopenhauer the superior human or Arminius?
Beethoven or Charlemagne?
Michelangelo or Caesar?

Whom is the more evolved, more perfect human?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Random Questions Box

Back to top Go down
 
Random Questions Box
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 8 of 8Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
 Similar topics
-
» Random Questions Box
» 'Flies in winter' questions
» Questions about Atlantis and Lumuria
» Lacson questions police helicopter purchase
» Sometimes, a random act of kindness can mean so much!

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Know Thyself :: AGORA-
Jump to: