Hello Friend,
If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.
It will be the most efficient use of your time.
And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.
Thank you for visiting and have a great day!
Do any of you guys have interest in philosophy?
- Thread starter Chamber36
- Start date
So, i guess u r in a bind right now with not much of a future or somehow ur dreams got smashed and you can't find a way out of the mess u r in.
This might be a convenient excuse to you, that everything was already planned out for you by nature and there's nothing you can do abt the failures in ur life, after all it is a program for failure.
Enjoy ur depression buddy and swirl in that self-pity because I know for certain you ain't gonna enjoy it in the long run.
You are guessing wrong. Actually I am one of the few on the forum who is not complaining. I am actually into self improvement and part of it is being educated but I also train to understand other viewpoints for example if somebody wants to be a tribal idiot that is not always a bad thing.
Last edited:
I have a question:
If we are the universe experiencing itself and we are all connected in that way as part of the infinite, why are we manifested in this world wherein organisms compete so harshly through darwinian evolution?
I suppose the mechanism through which we develop into higher, more intelligent, more refined organisms sadly has to be this immensely harsh and unforgiving dynamic of competition.
It may sound like two different premises which dont necessarily contradict each other. To me though it's interesting and seems they need to be reconciled. You could be looking at another manifestation of this universal consciousness and it may want to murder you.
It's a funny thought. How do you guys consider that?
If we are the universe experiencing itself and we are all connected in that way as part of the infinite, why are we manifested in this world wherein organisms compete so harshly through darwinian evolution?
I suppose the mechanism through which we develop into higher, more intelligent, more refined organisms sadly has to be this immensely harsh and unforgiving dynamic of competition.
It may sound like two different premises which dont necessarily contradict each other. To me though it's interesting and seems they need to be reconciled. You could be looking at another manifestation of this universal consciousness and it may want to murder you.
It's a funny thought. How do you guys consider that?
We have this human perspective on things. As we are basically chimps we have probably no chance to see anything in a "correct" way. It is like explaining a baby an electron.
We always are looking for divine ways that explain our existence in a meaningful way. I think that is a function of the survival imperative to look for meaning even if there is none. To make shure to use every 'lie' as a weapon of survival.
This is a materialistic world view.
The spiritual guys can come up with limitless reasonings about the meanings of the life and universe.
In the actualized Leo Gura forum the theory is that there is God and God wants to experience 'everything'. For that to happen it has to be able to limit itself. That is why it creates this life that is his life as humans. For that to work God has to believe in the limited experience of his life as humans. That is why he creates suffering that is darwinian competition so the experience feels real. I am not believing in this but it is kind of a cool theory.
Whats irreconcilable?
The consciousness of the chimp is also the universe experiencing itself. Its just a lesser consciousness in which there are also feelings, perceptions, emotions and objects. And they are also subject to darwinian evolutionary pressures, as we are.
The only difference is that we are able to pause and think about these things, perhaps draw diagrams about it and articulate it with words to try and describe it.
Its just interesting that to sit and appreciate all these things you have to sort of escape these darwinian pressures for a while. It seems that darwinian evolution is a sort of vehicle through which we reach this intelligence that we can sort of take a moment and perceive all these things. You can also observe the evolutionary pressures as they happen, through things like mindfulness or zen meditation, being conscious of everyday things.
Thats still different from being completely engaged and immersed in the competitive world in which we live though, which is the only way to make progress. People are under immense pressure to perform and have to concentrate on whatever they do, whether its hunting, playing golf or furthering your career.
The consciousness of the chimp is also the universe experiencing itself. Its just a lesser consciousness in which there are also feelings, perceptions, emotions and objects. And they are also subject to darwinian evolutionary pressures, as we are.
The only difference is that we are able to pause and think about these things, perhaps draw diagrams about it and articulate it with words to try and describe it.
Its just interesting that to sit and appreciate all these things you have to sort of escape these darwinian pressures for a while. It seems that darwinian evolution is a sort of vehicle through which we reach this intelligence that we can sort of take a moment and perceive all these things. You can also observe the evolutionary pressures as they happen, through things like mindfulness or zen meditation, being conscious of everyday things.
Thats still different from being completely engaged and immersed in the competitive world in which we live though, which is the only way to make progress. People are under immense pressure to perform and have to concentrate on whatever they do, whether its hunting, playing golf or furthering your career.
It's like life is a boxing match where before the match (birth or differentiation from universal consciousness presumably) we are all buddies. Then we proceed to try and murder each other. Then at the end we return to the infinite consciousness from whence we came.
That just kind of seems how it is to me.
That just kind of seems how it is to me.
I've noticed something else.
Reading Atlas Shrugged, I noticed that the protagonists couldnt fathom how the looters' minds worked.
Now this is tricky and may trigger people, but I think that people like Spaz and TheFinalLine who are trying to argue from a certain unspecifiable position are arguing from a position of ego.
And that's the same as what differentiates the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged. They dont fight to defend their reputation or their ego or keep their world views intact. They fight for progress in spite of their reputations.
So many people in this world dont fight for mutual benefit, they fight for personal gain, to keep their worldview intact or solely for a better reputation.
There are many people so entirely caught up in this meatsack competition that they dont realise its possible to make a lot of progress if they just didnt worry about losing face all the time.
This is what differentiates the looters and the strikers in her books. The ability to set their reputation aside for the benefit of global progress.
Its the difference between a collaborative vs a competitive mindset. Ego preservation. Fear. A need to hold on. A need to be in control. It's starting to make sense.
Sacrifice is the common theme here. If you can sacrifice yourself, you are on the side of the protagonists. Not sacrifice for the idea of sacrifice. Actual personal sacrifice. Personal material gain may come as a result. Point is opinions of others dont matter. You fight in spite of what others think and in spite of your ego.
Reading Atlas Shrugged, I noticed that the protagonists couldnt fathom how the looters' minds worked.
Now this is tricky and may trigger people, but I think that people like Spaz and TheFinalLine who are trying to argue from a certain unspecifiable position are arguing from a position of ego.
And that's the same as what differentiates the protagonists in Atlas Shrugged. They dont fight to defend their reputation or their ego or keep their world views intact. They fight for progress in spite of their reputations.
So many people in this world dont fight for mutual benefit, they fight for personal gain, to keep their worldview intact or solely for a better reputation.
There are many people so entirely caught up in this meatsack competition that they dont realise its possible to make a lot of progress if they just didnt worry about losing face all the time.
This is what differentiates the looters and the strikers in her books. The ability to set their reputation aside for the benefit of global progress.
Its the difference between a collaborative vs a competitive mindset. Ego preservation. Fear. A need to hold on. A need to be in control. It's starting to make sense.
Sacrifice is the common theme here. If you can sacrifice yourself, you are on the side of the protagonists. Not sacrifice for the idea of sacrifice. Actual personal sacrifice. Personal material gain may come as a result. Point is opinions of others dont matter. You fight in spite of what others think and in spite of your ego.
Share your knowledge then.
What?
Dont project onto me any level of activity.
Interesting.
Well we are animals. Among the animals we are mammals. Among the mammals we are humans. We have consciousness, the ability to communicate, manipulate our environment and the ability to record our knowledge. And so our knowledge accumulates and we advance.
For all we know dolphins have consciousness. They communicate. They may have names. They cannot however manipulate their environment or record their knowledge.
Can you explain to me how you are sure you have what is called free will as opposed to just the illusion of free will? If you decide to brush your teeth or turn left or have a strawberry pancake may be predetermined according to the laws of physics.
Now saying that you only have the illusion of free will doesnt mean you are at the same level as a dog. You can still create things. According to what you know, and what knowledge you have gathered and how clearminded you can think, you can change your environment.
However you can only manipulate the world according to what limited knowledge you have making use of the nutritional resources you have gathered to create your human body using your DNA.
Speaking of which, your human body is nothing but a vehicle used to replicate itself together with the DNA of another person.
Evolution and this DNA replication process is the process through which the immensely interesting phenomenon we call consciousness comes into being.
Now, what we seem to disagree on is this: some say every event in the universe is predetermined according to the laws of physics.
You may feel you are better than a dog because you dont bark and growl when provoked. It doesnt mean you are.
Your thoughts? Let me repeat, I am curious to your proof that we have actual free will and not just the illusion of it. Perhaps you find that a few humans have it. The ones that have transcended the masses. I am speculating but I am curious where you may have gotten your ideas from.
Last edited:
MatureDJ
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 10,520
- Reaction score
- 4,342
My earliest formal education in philosophy was religion class in high school. 
It was well past my college days that I began to get an interest in philosophy, really blossoming with the plethora of individual takes on philosophy supplied by YouTube. I probably should watch a Philosophy 1000 series on YouTube to get a proper introduction.
It was well past my college days that I began to get an interest in philosophy, really blossoming with the plethora of individual takes on philosophy supplied by YouTube. I probably should watch a Philosophy 1000 series on YouTube to get a proper introduction.Btw. for the guys interested in philosophy. There is a thread where other forum threads are 'jamed'. Could be an intersting thing.
Regarding Ayn Rand I have some repulsion reading her books. It feels like it is something a 19 teenager has written in his 'I am the man' phase. It feels like a caricature but maybe I will use a tolerant day to make another attempt.
Btw you can check out the discussion on youtube with David Packman and
Yaron Brooks. I will not link it as it might make some start some political discussions.
****$$$$
Postcards: - Philosophy Now Forum
forum.philosophynow.org
Regarding Ayn Rand I have some repulsion reading her books. It feels like it is something a 19 teenager has written in his 'I am the man' phase. It feels like a caricature but maybe I will use a tolerant day to make another attempt.
Btw you can check out the discussion on youtube with David Packman and
Yaron Brooks. I will not link it as it might make some start some political discussions.
****$$$$
Last edited:
That video makes the case we that most people are too stupid to be objectivist so objectivism is a flawed way of making sense of the world and thus making decisions?
From the objectivist point of view the reaction would be that we should all make the best decision we can, in our own rational self interest at whatever time we can, given the mental capacity that we have. To prefer to make flawed decisions based on intuition and then backwards rationalising them is just the same as making an excuse for poor decision making: "what do I know?! I'm not that smart."
What a non-philosophy that was... Use your intuition and then backwards rationalise... Literally.... Jesus.
When I was a kid I wanted to be like Spock because I wanted to be able to think and act logically but at one point you have to accept that most of life has not much to do with rationality. Most things happen subconciously.
Objectivism seems like it is looking for rationality when there is none. At least not one you can probably figure out. It is sometimes better to accept that you don't know and go with the flow and maybe much later you might understand some things.
Additionally Objectivism seems like not accepting that we are still programmed through evolution. It acts like a religion where you can be a hero who can create his own universe.
I think maybe Ayn Rand got so traumatised from the USSR for good reasons that she went to far into the opposite direction.
On a higher level as everything is probably illusion rationality seems not so important anyway.
****$$$$
