Forums

AncientMariner wrote:

Σατυρ wrote:

The question demands an explanation, an absolute reason to justify the real which flows by in an endless stream, unconcerned with human vanities and fears and preferences and addictions to comfort and certainty.

So we are the flow then, but a stream which has temporarily diverged from the main body which is vast, cold, dark and lifeless. This brief deflection has bought the stream into conscious awareness... but it will not last.

This is where dualism comes from.
The metaphor of the "stream" temporarily diverging from the river's "flow" is an apt one.

God is the dual, in the duality.
The absolute is a representation of this towards disconnecting from the flow.

Of course this is impossible and nihilistic, as any detachment essentially means a demise.
What is contrary to existence is non-existence. What is "outside" the real is the unreal.

So this divergence must always be in reference to the other, not the flow itself.
To resist, to be contrary, only in as much as this affords one more time, more timelessness (genius being this timelessness) , to disconnect so much as to perceive more clearly, before the flow wins out.

This is where ego leads to suffering and the nihilists preach a surrender to the inevitable.
To deny one's self the opportunity of standing out so as to not experience the sensation of the flow, which is need.....suffering being how one senses it.

Classic pandering:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Weaving a fine line between total castration and trying not to appear too "primal".

Careless wrote:

The origins of the word human are from the word humus, meaning ground or earth. Humans were earthly beings, i.e. contrasted with the gods.

Well, I wonder what "fully human" means.
Something virtuous and nice, I think.

I, for one, do not feel "fully human" unless I am being paid for services rendered.
It makes me feel useful...and the other decides my value.

This was a typical response - it comes straight form the liberal bible of apologetics:

Careless wrote:

All evidence suggests that this claim is totally empty. I don't know what standard you're using, but by any objective standard there are plenty of brilliant female and non-white scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, authors, philosophers, etc. etc. Just for a quick example, because I don't think this claim needs too much attention to be rejected, look at this list of female nobel laureates. If none on that list pass muster, I must accuse that you are simply abusing the language.

A prize one decides who is genius.
A long list of so few exceptional exceptions to the rule.
Considering the numbers we must explain the disparity to male bigotry.

and look....not one single revolutionary thinker.
A bunch of contributors.

This would be like equating Michelangelo with the modern follower of his genius, because he imitates so well, or it's like comparing a Beethoven with Lady Ga Ga.

When she wins a Grammy remind me to put her amongst the pantheon of musical geniuses.

I remember seeing a show once where an elephant was drawing and sellnig his art for large sums of money.
Proof, I presume, that animals have an artistic flare.

I'm only glad nobody is reading any of this.
Especially the retard Faust.
I would hate to imagine him wasting his time here when he could be over there, searching through his forum trying to find a slight to ignore or slap down and contributing trite little laconic comments exhibiting his impartial brilliance.

Just to clarify my previous post concerning this absurdity:

Careless wrote:

All evidence suggests that this claim is totally empty. I don't know what standard you're using, but by any objective standard there are plenty of brilliant female and non-white scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists, authors, philosophers, etc. etc. Just for a quick example, because I don't think this claim needs too much attention to be rejected, look at this list of female nobel laureates. If none on that list pass muster, I must accuse that you are simply abusing the language..

The concept of "brilliance" is in question here.
we use it so carelessly in our time.
We might say Pele was a "brilliant" soccer player and include him in the category of genius along with Goethe or Darwin.

The standard this buffoon uses is a reward of appreciation.
This constitutes, for him, evidence of brilliance, which is uniform, as all Nobel Laureates are equally worthy of the title in equal measure.

that's like saying a "brilliant" fiddler is the equal in genius to the composer he is playing, or that Ingram Bergman is equally brilliant to her ex-husband Roberto Rosellini based on the fact that she won an academy award, even if she might have won it mouthing the words to a character another wrote for her, and directer her in a movie another created and thought up.

The concept of "brilliance" loses all nuance.
It becomes a blanket label describing one that is appreciated by the community of those who distribute the award.

The subtlety of what constitutes genius rather than a very notable contribution is lost in a word, describing an institutional sanction.

To explain the difference between the brilliance of an Jean Paul Sartre compared to a Simone de Beauvoir would be an endeavor comparable to a sommelier trying to explain the difference in quality between a 100 year-old bottle, made of wines picked during a good year, versus a wine made up of mixtures of grapes picked last year, to a man with the palate of a numskull.

The numskull cares not about the nuances in taste, the fragrances the smoothness the subtle aftertastes because he can't perceive them.
He just knows that both make his head spin and both taste generally alike.

He would give an award to bo9th given his criteria and would consider them equal if he were not inclined to prefer the younger wine for other reasons, like price or the absence of complexity or simple personal taste.

The sommelier try as he might will not be able to convey the subtle differences, the art in making wine, how age leads to qualitative differences, the nuances in tastes that make one superior to the other.
For the numskull he would be speaking an alien language.

Here is what "philosophy" has become, the endless banter over concepts neither side can justify or has any experience with; a discussion over the fantastic and the supernatural - mind-candy at its best:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Of course that the concept in question are more than incompatible but are also nonexistent, matters not as both sides are indulging in mind-farting, pretending to be involved in delicate, profound debates.
None of it matters, as its all based on an imagined hypothetical...and both will depart the conversation with the same views and with the feeling that something great was just experienced.

Then they will wonder why philosophy is so useless; why it has no practical application for them.
For them it's a pastime, a reason to think of themselves as "intelligent" a hobby with no effect on their livelihood.

All theories and no pragmatic utility.

Yes, this is what thinking has become: an endless debate over nonsensical concepts - ones Wittgenstein would pass over in silence - and academic posturing involved in an endless cock-fight using imaginary cocks.

Fagst wrote:

And yet, if it weren't for ILP, you'd have very little to talk about. (Was that another tumbleweed?)

Yes, a specimen jar is a good conversation piece.
An aquarium is good too.
I love your aquarium.
And if it were not for animals there would be little to talk about in relation to natural selection.

Fagst wrote:

Our inane inclusiveness produces actual conversations. Some are as stupid as shit, yes. But nothing is stupider than an entire thread about another forum. I have never seen that, anywhere. (Oh - it was just a large dustbunny.) This place is a hell - dead people talking about those that are still alive.

I know, because when there's nothing to talk about, it's best to have a few fools around to raise the dust.

I admit it, stupidity is a regular source of conversation subjects.

I never realized dust could be so fascinating.

Fagst wrote:

Ech - you're not still banned from ILP, are you? Why don't you join the living. We're dumb fucks, but we breathe air. Not this fetid stench.

I wonder if being amongst the brain-dead, the zombies, can be considered living, or is being alive an endless sharing of inanities?
Yammering women can talk for hours about the most trivial things.

I would think that life is full of interest, and that a jar full of bugs is but a small sampling of its endless treasures, more to do with human decay than nature as a whole.

I'm sure that participating will be welcomed - I feel you are becoming bored already - but I fear that it could only lead to my banishment.
You see, I can tolerate a lot of things but starting threads to have them buried under mountains of crap, by your "all inclusive" party-animals, and then being reprimanded for fighting back, would be a waste of my time.
I would rather sit on a rock, over a field, and meditate over the landscape, or watch a sunset or write or think on my own, or, why not, play with a bug filled jar, or watch fish swim in circles, as I often do for hours. Besides the jar is always there for my amusement and to study human stupidity, why would I want to get in it and dirty myself with all that bug feces floating about over there?

See, uncle, when you invite the rabble to a party, because you fear that a more quiet get-together surrounded by your own would reflect badly upon your populist persona - you being the life in any party, like all drunk kindly uncles are - then you should expect it to be ruined by some retard taking a crap on the sofa or a bitch taking her clothes off to show us her tits or an inebriated fucktard laying a fart an giggling hysterically as if it were the funniest thing in the world. Sure it will turn into an event, fun times if you can take the stench, entertaining even, but not really productive.
More of a casual distraction one remembers but denies being a part of later.

You see, uncle, the lowest common denominator drags the entire affair down, and the stupidest always become the center of the party's focus. It deteriorates into a drunken fest.
Try it.
Invite a bunch of scholars to a party then also invite your family, or some other group of inane douche-bags...better yet hold an open party where anyone off the streets can just walk in, now notice how fast it deteriorates to debauchery where none of the scholars stick around and if they do none are interested in anything but pussy and wine.

See, moron, if you wish to have an intellectual conversation you don't invite your plumber who only wants to talk about sports or your grandma or the junky nephew of yours.
You must be more selective, more discriminating.

But if that's what you like, then why call it "ILovePhilosophy"?
Call it ILoveGossip" or "ILoveDouchebags" or "ILoveToParty" or "ILoveStupidPeopleandWhores".

Would you start an orgy and then invite anyone in?
A recipe for STD. It only takes one smelly cunt or one boil infested dick to make you wish you hadn't afterward.

Why the pretext?
You certainly don't want to stop the retards from ruining every thread started, reducing it to a - what do you call it? - a "flame war" and when you do it turns to shit anyway, as other than that the members have nothing interesting to say about any subject, outside the usual cultural and popular crap.
Those that do are shouted down, insulted, taunted with sarcasm...and if they fight back, instead of quietly slipping away never to return, you have your little clique of "moderator" douche-bags ready to chastise him, mostly because most of your clique hates anything outside the cultural norm because they are reflections of your membership: retarded conformists, pretending to be free-spirited intellectuals.

If you're not a feminist or you have some controversial opinions concerning sex or race or humanity or life or society or culture, then be sure that you will be watched over very carefully; your posts screened for any hint of an insult directed against your prized membership, because even douche-bags need an excuse to censor. You'll ignore any snide remarks or insults from your prized membership because they are innocuous, but a slight hint of it from the not so prized members and see how fast they are out.
I've seen swearing exchanged with minimal repercussions, and yet I was banned for 3 months for responding to your prized membership in a manner they asked for.

You know why?
Because retards are the first to run to the authorities complaining after they've been ripped to shreds.
Who but the bitch bitches the loudest?
Expose a christian to his own stupidity and see him whine about how bigoted and intolerant of another's faith you are.

Weaklings use authorities and rules all the time, uncle. They are the first to sue and the last to take responsibility for their won actions.

Nah, boy, that much hypocrisy is not to my taste.
I get enuogh of that in real life, which your forum mirrors so wonderfully by the way.
You are a little microcosm of the macrocosm. This is why your forum is such a perfect specimen jar.
Would any scientist inject himself into his own experiment or infect his specimen pool?

Fagst wrote:

And you, tough guy - I banned a member because he was snipjng at you. He was a pretty good poster, too. And I almost banned another. Or maybe I did - don't remember. So why don't you shut the fuck up and get back to posting on ILP like you did for about two weeks - you know, like a grownup? Sure, you'd be casting pearls before swine - but you're casting them into the gutter, here.

I'm sorry you lost so many of your most prized members on my behalf.
I'm surprised those retards that could only respond with taunts and pictures of kittens and with jeers, were what you consider a "good posters".

A severe loss.
I guess posting endless dribble could me considered "good posting" when numbers are what is considered "good".
How non-capitalistic of you. Very avant guard stuff there.

Here's the thing...I don't know what you think is going on here, but indiscriminate participation is not considered a plus.
It's like a club with very strict membership criteria.
Sure we have our mascot, and we allow a turd to enter for the weekly show - you know how good idiots are at entertainment - but I think, and I only speak for myself, that my motto "Live Lightly" is an ascetic idea which also includes humans.
We have special rooms here for that kind of decadent play. We don't drag the crap into every room until it all smells and looks like shit.

Drinking piss because there's no lemonade is not something I am willing to do. I would rather drink plain old water.

You see, sometimes being alone, or being silent, is preferable to being in a room full of morons screeching and blathering out stupidities.
Yes, it can be fun once in a while, but not for long.
I wouldn't invite any of these morons to my home, but I prefer them to be over there, where I know I can avoid them, and where I can indulge at poking at them from time to time.

And if and when I do enter that room of idiots then how foolish would I be if I spoke earnestly and with any degree of seriousness about any subject which mattered to me, knowing that the majority of turds would only shit on it and if I tore them a new asshole you, my gallant defender of populist democracy, would suddenly appear to slap their wrists because they are your prized members, and ban me, symbolically, for a month or two, because I am so vile and prejudiced and "bitter".

Fagst wrote:

By the way, your kid is as cute as all get-out. You are rightfully proud. Let's hope he gets your brains and not your bitterness.

The only thing I'm bitter about is the fact that I wasted so much time and effort taking you douche-bags seriously.
I learned my lesson a long time ago...I think it was around my tenth banning.

"Philosophy"?!
Give me a break.

All you guys want is a repetition, a reaffirmation of your self-evident ideals, a constant haggling over minor details while the foundations remain unchallenged, an opportunity for some more profound duplicity, what you call civility, where you all pretend you are involved in intellectual debate while you repeat the same old shit and call it "progress".

Remember insult Kant but not the one parroting him.
Someone might get hurt, a parrot might fly away, denying you the pleasures of its constant squawking, and we know how much you hate silences.

There's a problem they have in hockey.
A current debate in the NHL.

How do you fill up the stands with those that come to be entertained with primal displays, while still protecting your prized players from getting hurt.

See, if you slacken the rules all your talented players will be out with concussions and broken ribs and you'll be left with goons slumbering about, deteriorating the spectacle to a Pee Wee tournament with nice fights.

If, on the other hand, you become more protective of your prized players, whose that raise the level of the game, you lose the game's mass appeal, because most of the arena is filled with retards who are there hoping a fistfight will break out.

That's your dilemma uncle, not mine.

I'm happy playing street-hockey with a few friends, hopefully with some hockey skills, and if I can't find any I'm content not playing at all - and just watching imbeciles, who can barely walk let alone skate, making fools of themselves on the ice....very thin ice.

Missed the point again, didn't ya?

Back to your full arena, uncle.
Let's hope in between the fighting and the slip sliding like amateurs some nice stick-handling will happen......

But it won't last long, some turd will elbow him and if he gets up and fights back you'll throw both of them out of the game....no you'll probably throw the talent out because he makes you feel like a klutz while the other retard makes you feel like a superstar - you'll give him a 2 minute penalty so that he can return and elbow someone else - because the retard fills the stands with more retards who can relate to him and they can play vicariously through and because the talent reminds them of how fat and slow and untalented they are.

Remember, nobody shall be disallowed from getting on the ice, and see how long the weaker players begin clutching and throwing elbows while the ref is scratching his balls or pretending he doesn't see.
But you aren't there for hockey at all..you are there for a good time....you know to waste away a few hours slapping the puck around and banging into the boards like gorillas.

When the motive is to fill the stands, then you are the ref for the job, boy.
And Carleas s the perfect manager.

Make sure you don't insult the cheer leaders. The boys love to play in front of pussy flinging pompoms.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

More evidence as to how consistent the application of "rules" are over there.

In the end what it comes down to is that once all are accepted into the fold it all depends on the particular moderator's own views and tastes as to whether one will be tolerated or chastised, or if another will be ridiculed or protected from ridicule.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Once in a while you come across a mask that has a noticeable smell of familiarity, like some of the monikers used here, but you do not dare pas judgment upon because they offer so muck bulk.

Like shopping at WalMart.
Vast varieties of massive quantities with cheapness as part of the price.

But in every piece of replicated junk some short=-term pleasure can be found - like with any trinket.

From this I gain the premise that "philosophy gets "some" of its premises from science.....I can only hope that this also means that science get's "some" of its premises from philosophy, otherwise we are talking about a very unhealthy relationship.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Every so often you come across a pile that bears a title that contradicts everything ever posted by the same anus.

Using the medium we are forced to use, the taking on of personae with hazy motives or to escape earlier embarrassment is easy enough....yet if you take a little time and skim through the text you get a whiff of something you've smelled before, even if you might not remember where or how it was packaged.

To bring into focus, to make the intuited using other sense organs, is a daunting affair when so little sensual information is available....still the mind recognizes.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Read how this retard proposes to defend his absurd belief.

According to him, it, the one rejecting a claim is burdened 'equally'! with the one asserting.

Therefore if a clown comes to you and tells you his asshole is a gateway to heaven you disbelieving him is equal to his claim that it is.
You see how equality works?

All claims or rejections of claims are now equalized under the premise of communal ignorance, because we are all equally ignorant and our positions are equally based on the same faith.

And, of course, with the aid of a lap-dog like Faust and his little gang of "authority" figures defending "free-speech" and "civility", these morons can entertain the notion further as the mere fact that they are tolerated and talked to and listened to, under the premise of this holiness of civility and all-inclusion, they are offered the "right" and think it as evidence of their quality.

The ILP "authority" and common retard dared to claim [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] that women were equal to men, intellectually, based on the fact that there have been women Nobel Prize winners.

I noted then that this is like claiming that the actress who won an academy Award for depicting a character in a movie written and directed by a man who also won the academy Award, or perhaps did not, was this man's equal.

Outside of the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] surrounding this award, set up by a man who felt guilty about his innovations and culminating in the preemptive awarding of its much coveted distinction to Barack Obama for his contributions to peace because he had announced the pulling out of American troops from Iraq- ironic given the later developments - let us witness what happens if one of them dares to express an opinion that contradicts the established Judeo-Christian and secular humanist liberal "progressive" dogma:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

No matter your station you are vulnerable to the wrath of the millions who have been seduced and by the social mythologies of our age.
No censorship?
Only if you speak within the "acceptable" limits and you never challenge the holy scriptures of your time and place.

Let us enjoy a small list of some of these "great" men and women.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Can can only sit back in awe at the sheer audacity of pulling shit out of your arse with the seriousness of an undertaker and then presenting their infantile contradictions with the air of rational maturity.

I tip my hat off to all you retards.

Who but a total imbecile would declare a "place" out of space/time and an existence "outside" existence not even realizing that this absurdity, with no reference to anything in reality, is the exact description of nonexistence and the nonsensical.

That the world has fallen so low that a turd like this can enjoy the protective embrace of a forum that tolerates stupidity in its drive to become popular and that it is now respected and humored as it declares the exception to the rule for which he offers no justification and no evidence and zero arguments and it pronounces shit about a fantasy figure for which it can provide no rational explanation for - except that it feels good - is a glaring testament to the decay we are facing here.

So, I must give praise where it is due.

Good job Carleas, and you too drunken puppy-dog Faust, for a job well-done.
Not only have you created a microcosm of the macrocosm, reflecting the general decay of intellectualism, but you've managed ot lower your entire forum to the level of a post-special-Olympics jamboree where the last placed retard is offered an olive branch to place around his empty skull making him feel no different than the retard that came in first, begging the question:

"Why run at all?"

Bravo sirs....if shooting the shit with a few buddies and bitches was the goal, then you've more than achieved it.

zainba wrote:

life seems to be like hell from my point of view.
i feel the most special person on earth.
i've ideas for making the world heaven.
people don't tend to listen to me.
it's kinda like they are living in illusion that things are ok
people don't see clear enough that the evil is inside of them.

i want to make something more clear that will change it all and i need to tell my thoughts. them all.
i've a book (sort of a blog) and i try to tell some things there but i can't put my hand on all my thoughts that ran in my head until now.

what will you agree to in effort to make the world much less of an hell?

it's seems it's all possible

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Typical. Says it all, don't it?

Yeup, when the world is a "hell" there are no ends the mind will not go to to "cure" it of its hellishness.

The emotional presumption is followed by an emotional plea and a promise.

Reasoning goes like this:

The world is dissatisfying, "wrong" ergo to correct it all that it is not must be brought about.

The Judeo-Christian doctrine enters, turning the world on its head, as this is what this promise entails.

The utopian paradise is always a contradiction of the perceived.

World - Mortal... Violent and Aggressive...Mutable... Dangerous and Competitive... Unknown...Imperfect... Suffering and Painful... Accessible via Consciousness and direct lucid engagement... Experienced by the Living...Sensual and Empirical... Pragmatic and Utilitarian....Uncertain...Incomplete.... Multiplicity.... Perceptible and Experienced... Real.... Natural.... Active.... Needy, in a state of need....Gradations... Multifaceted and Interactive,....Chaotic.... Immediate.... Determining Unambiguous and Inescapable....Varying in degrees of weakness and ignorance... Free-Willing.....ect....

Utopia/Paradise - Immortal....Loving..... Passive.....Benevolent.....Immutable....Known but rejected and/or unreachable.... Perfect.... Pleasing.... Only accessible via Unconsciousness or any form of self-inebriating, mind-numbing, thoughtlessness and/or chemical interventions...... Experienced by the Dead or in some after-life state of non-existence or existence "outside" reality....Imagined..... Idealistic...... Non-applicable and always best when it remains theoretical..... Certain.....Complete..... Uniform..... Imperceptible.... Unreal or Ideal..... Unnatural or Supernatural, Static.... Satisfying..... Absolutes..... Singular..... Order..... Hypothetical...... Indefinite...... Ambiguous and Escapist.....eternally omniscient and omnipotent......Authoritarian......etc...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A 1 day ban, apparently.

Fuck.... that didn't last long did it?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
One can never get enough of a morsel so bittersweet.

Quote :

This thread is about the phrase, not the book.

"Beyond Good and Evil"... At least this does not mean "Beyond Good and Bad."------
[Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals, first treatise, section 17.]

Very basically, "good" as opposed to "bad" is, according to Nietzsche, what the strong call themselves; whereas "bad", derivatively, is what they call those who are evidently or apparently weak. "Good" as opposed to "evil", on the other hand, is very basically what the weak call themselves, which is derivative of what they call the strong, which is "evil".

A further difference is that "good and bad" are, like "strong and weak", relative, whereas "good and evil" are absolute: thus even in Origen's doctrine of the privatio bonis (evil conceived as the privation of good), one is either a good man (a saint) or an evil one (a sinner), though there are greater and lesser sinners, greater and lesser evils, greater and lesser privations of the good.

What it means to be beyond good and evil but not beyond good and bad may be understood from the following example. Supposing that it's harder (i.e., requires more strength, in the full sense of the word) to rape a mature woman than a little girl, to do the former is better, or less bad, than to do the latter, which is worse, or less good; whereas neither of these acts is evil.

Need I say more?

No, you should not, as your mentor is saying it for you.
Yet nothing has gotten beyond anything.
Good/Bad?
What simplicity from one that has spent so much time studying the same ideas.

Perhaps beyond binary systems, beyond absolutes.

At what point do you realize that you are addicted or floundering on the shores of your own feminine weakness?

Ten years of Nietzsche mongering is a tough act to follow. One can only sit in awe before such love.
Only Christian fanatics show this much dedication and continuous absorption with the same text, the same authors, the same ideas...the same allegorical language....struggling to hang closer to that divine mouth.

A mentor teaches, and then you move on, taking the teaching with you, like mementos from a strange land; adapting it to your circumstances. You apply your understanding of him to your ongoing existence and you make adjustments.
To return to him, time after time after time, is an admission of incompetence, if not stupidity.
It's an admission that you cannot understand the metaphors or you are incapable of applying them - it is an admission of dependence.

This desire to project upon the text deeper levels of understanding is like a thirsty traveler digging in the sand hoping that the few dew drops on the surface will give way to oceans of water.
This is projected need.
Everything about the text is now dissected under the hope that it promises infinite material to feed upon. It's never enough.
It's magic springs eternal.
Have you seen Christians go into their feeding frenzy when discussing the multiple possible interpretations of the Book?

In this case it is also an admission that goes against the very ideas the mentor proposed.
This idol-breaker did it on purpose, perhaps. His style using some of the same devices the text he so despised used with such effectiveness; perhaps wanting to filter out all that crap this divine text had left behind.

I would think Jesus would grumble coming across his modern "followers"; those who are unable to comprehend and so are unable to follow fully.
Perhaps he too did not wish for followers...and still they follow. Perhaps he ran with purpose, wishing to leave the many behind in the desert.

The irony to be idolized by those you wanted to express the idea of shattering all idols and a distinct distaste for all idolization and all worshiping, is only comparable to the irony of having pharisees spring out of a teaching that spoke against organized churches and against hypocritical priests.

I enjoyed the commentary that followed.

Some mask-holder, a gadfly eternally governed by his own more personal obsessions, is now being placed at my doorstep.
Of what "bitterns" do these boys speak of when they mention me so casually and cast aspersions to draw attention?

These "lovers of wisdom" can only imagine the kind that goes through another's words and insights.
I would think that a love of wisdom would be based on a love of reality - a desire to engage it directly - instead of this eternal bickering over scripture or trying retain the privileged delusion of being considered a favored son, or one of the chosen, or the master's best mouth-piece.
If love is not accompanied by desire then what good is it?

How sad to only aspire to be one of the twelve disciples, spreading the "word".

Quote :

I just had an insight (which, by the way, like, among many others, Luther's famous insight, came to me while on the toilet) into (young) men like Silhouette, with his emphasis on pride, and Hate Speech, who believes he's a "creator of values". Methinks that these are the ones Plato's Socrates called the "auxiliaries". Today they're the ones who are proud of the Nietzschean epithet "free spirit"; maybe Satyr ranks among them as their king. In any case, they have always been the most problematic ones. For their turning against philosophy (like Silhouette recently did when he called me a Nazi, or Hate Speech when he called me a Jew) is philosophy's greatest danger. Philosophy needs their alliance.

The christian sees devils in every darkness.
An old hurt wishes to be healed. Maybe the epithets are not so far off base, after all.
They mar his otherwise pristine self-assessment, for he shall be the only "free-spirit" because only he has followed behind the master so diligently, trying to step in the exact same places in the exact same way - only he has paid the price, and remained a loyal widow.

What is anti-intellectual and anti-philosophical is when thinking has been institutionalized; when it can only focus on the mediator while life and the world is lost behind his looming figure.
The wanderer has now acquired more shadows; they jostle for the prime spot, right behind the massive hulk.

Then the boy, who would be man, the one who has spent the better part of a decade totally obsessed, like a little girl dreaming of a knight, speaks of Socratic "auxiliaries".
The voice of Hellenic decay used so brilliantly.

The second sod offers the usual reinterpretation of the text, under the guidance of modern social and cultural effects, and tries to cleanse it of its unholy undertones.

Quote :

Haha, sod off! That guy screams ressentiment like diarrhea. I actually doubt a single person respects him, nevermind wants to serve under him. Hardly king material.

My Nazi accusation was circumstantial not personal, and conditional upon you advocating the killing of paedophiles because you were Nietzschean and therefore weren't against killing. I pointed out the similarity between this and the Nazi attitude towards Jews, with no doubt plenty of them claiming to be backed up by Nietzscheanism.
You seemed to deny the specific application of this stance and I have no reason nor desire to call you a liar.
So without the specific application of such a stance, the Nazism comment no longer applies to anything, and thus dissolves.
I never called you a Nazi in general, it was only the context of that sentiment that suggested such - and with your clarification it was successfully voided.

So with that in mind I don't see how your accusation stands up - that I have turned against philosophy. What I have done is turn against truth in favour of value and the wisdom that this opens up. I do so out of love, and therefore am the epitome of a philosopher. My opposition to philognothy and my accusation of similar thinking to a Nazi each do nothing to compromise this.

I think you seem to have flushed your insight and posted that which you meant to flush - I really don't get how your assertions, with regard to me at least, hold any water.

Philosophy's greatest danger is in the majority who do not ally with me, not the other way around.

You see, even Heidegger had to be rehabilitated after the war, so as to save his genius from the destruction of leveling.
The old Nazi is now saved from complete social "disgrace" by making him a naive victim of circumstance, or a misinformed casualty of war that made a simplistic error; he had to be reinterpreted, rehabilitated, after the fact, and with no participation of his own, for a world that wanted to taste his mind but not the parts that did not digest well in a stomach adapted to softer nutrients...baby-foods.

And who better to achieve this massive undertaking than the academicians through which the masses receive their daily dose of wisdom, and the mysterious texts are interpreted in accordance with current needs?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Hmmmm.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then the idiot says this..and I quote:

Quote :

As you know, an existence is a mutual affecter. Every"thing" that exists is always trying to affect its surroundings and vsvrsa.

It is "trying"?
So, this "thing" has a motive? Even a particle? It desires? It can project, assess and analyze opportunities?

Fascinating.
Is the idiot adopting Schopenhauer's notion of possibilities as a definition of projected space, and simply using another word...one which totally destroys the concept?

I always thought that directing energies, such as organic ones, was a product of life, then consciousness as a more efficient method...but I must be wrong.
You see, according to this moron all "things" can project "opportunities".

So, when air flows towards a vacuum or when water flows down a slope it is seeking opportunities?
Opportunities for what?

The imbeciles - can anyone guess who victorel21 is? - do not even understand that only a conscious mind can project an absolute and then strive towards it seeking a completion.
This "completion" being nothing less than a desire to end itself or the sensation of existing.
If it developed a strong enough will it might even go against the path-of-least-resistance trying to gain an advantage by weathering more resistance in the hope that it might reach its projected goal faster.

All else flows along paths-of-least-resistance...flowing constantly and aimlessly.

Wanna see the douchebag scrambling to justify ILP's stupidity and why the question "Does nothing exist?" - an indication of the forum's overall quality of mind - is insanely stupid.

I quote the retard:

Quote :

We at ILP and places like it are the groundlings, the peasants and the bohemians of philosophy - when we're not merely overgrown adolescents who simply read the first three paragraphs of a Wiki article and post a few lines about nothing being something or some similar misunderstanding of the basic vocabulary of philosophy.

He is now a "we", because he associates with this level of "thinking".
He can relate to it and that is why he defends it with such pride.

"Philosophical language"?
You mean it does not only require a basic understanding of language?
Is the concept of "nothing", as a definition of what does not exist, a difficult philosophical concept?
Does one need to be trained in academic philosophy to understand why "nothing exists" is an oxymoron, meant to confuse and inspire the moron?

No they are not "merely overgrown adolescents who simply read the first three paragraphs of a Wiki article" - I wonder who he had in mind with that precise number? - but they might be retarded, under-grown, who are simply simple, and who would not fair any better no matter how many paragraphs they managed to parrot or struggle through, picking up only the semantics without the understanding.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Does anyone else see the connection?

I love the antagonistic spirit, one that does not even shy away from taking up a vapid position so as to stake a claim on greatness.

My son often antagonizes me by disagreeing with me on everything.
It's what little boys do with their dads.
Stretching their egos, wanting to declare their masculine presence.

It's cute for the first decade, then it is tolerable, as a natural part of growing up, but when one touches upon his thirtieth birthday it becomes ridiculous.

And look, the boy has discovered the psychological principle of mirroring, at the root of all social interactions....
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

He presents it as a eureka moment.
I hope the number is an indication of his age.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Did they summon Hannibal the Cannibal?!

I think not, 'cause they know not what they do.

How would they deal with him, the beast that he is?
So un-respected and bitter.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Poor maryshelly.

The notion of accountability escapes her.

Because being abused when minding your own business is the same as being abused when fucking asking for it.
Are there violent men out there?
For sure.

Is violence part of life?
Obviously.

Then why do some women go asking for more?

I mean I can sympathize with someone mauled by a bear when out camping, but I sort of snicker with joy when this someone goes out looking for grizzlies, to befriend them, with no gun, and then has his head torn off.

You know, getting food poisoning one day is different from eating shit hoping that you might not.

Maybe instead of staying home some women can keep their tits and ass more wrapped up.
Who knows, maybe amongst the crowd of unknowns there might be someone not indoctrinated or not willful enough to care about laws.

Would you go near a bee's hive with nectar spread over your balls?
Would you go swimming off the Great Barrier Reef with blood splattered on your arse?
I wouldn't.

But some retarded sluts would, because they luvs the attention and they think that because the law protects their stupidity, enabling them to remain naive and stupid, that their luck will hold up.

Zero accountability.
When something bad happens to you, it is never your fault, you had no say in it, you could have done nothing to avoid it...no it is always the other.
Because, in the end, the universe is a benevolent place and God is love.

One more for [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from the boy we know so well, from the curvature in his fragile little spine.

It would appear that life is possible in a vacuum, detached from an environment....ergo everything is not innate.

So, let us let our minds go, detach thinking from that dreaded world that places rules before it and challenges it, and let us imagine a being born into a non-environment environment....an oxymoronic flight into madness....well then, can we not imagine, in a very ambiguous way, a body with no sexual identity, no language, no anything?

Sex for instance.
Since it is a product of environment and society gives it color and shape and direction, therefore if we miraculously erase environment, as if by magic, then sex is not innate.
In fact life just springs out of the "nothing".

I wonder if stupidity is innate.

And I quote:

Quote :

Now the environment from the individual point of view is defined as: that which is perceived by the senses, (including the sixth sense). if void of the environment a person will not love, hate, or be angry at anything, hence although developing emotions is inevitable, they cannot be said to be innate ( present at birth).

If emotions are reactions, and life is reactive, then what a wonderful mind that is alive yet not; nothing confronts it, it feels nothing towards anything because it is void in a sea of emptiness.

I love the typical singing off that stinks of bravado, and is reminiscent of this boy's style.

Quote :

Have fun.

You can almost see him smiling, as if he declared a "check mate" when he just lost the game.

Shit the internet is fun.
Sometimes the "unknown" can be so knowable.
You feel an energy there.
Masculine reason always benefits from a feminine intuition.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

My God, can people become more stupid?

Faust finds some value in being the gatekeeper to a kindergarten, where children can play undisturbed by reality, and within which he feels most at home.

But why inject suffering when it might result in growth, when remaining children, development retarded at birth, when we can sit around and shoot the shit, spew out any stupidity that comes to mind?

The Group Hug: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Silhouette wrote:

It is solved by doing what you are doing right now: communicating with others toward collective solution.

It is particularly demoralising how an individual on his own is so dis-empowered. But on the other hand, it is more demoralising how we all expect this to be true - having learned no culture of communication with others toward collective solution.
Outside our group of friends and associates, or even amongst these people there is a surprising lack of knowledge and discussion of shared injustice. Off-hand complaints go no further than these social islands that we restrict ourselves to. We might know we all have it in common in the abstract, but this is a far cry from the consolidation of actual discussion.

It stops at the point where we resist the culture of alienation that is only emphasised by our economic conditions of competition and atomised individualism.
If we slowly spread a culture of actually sharing complaints beyond our normal restricted social circles, and more openly within them, the power that we actually have will become revealed to us and thus the courage to actually do something about it. This will be the point at which "it" stops.