EPT[book] Sophie's World (+ philosophical ranting) - Page 2
| Blogs > Xusneb |
|
Weaponx3
Canada232 Posts
| ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
So what's the solution? Suicide? That's probably not right because then I'm hurting myself with my action. Hrm, "enjoy life by trying to help others"? If you really believe the statement you made, yes. Otherwise, time for you to make a new statement and try to put some nuance in there. | ||
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
faseman
Australia215 Posts
Life has no purpose. You have to give it meaning! Do what you enjoy, joke with friends, meet girls, gain a rank in IcCup. Whatever the fuck gives you some enjoyment is what you should be doing! Weaponx3 gives me a headache. Is there an ignore button? | ||
|
KurtistheTurtle
United States1966 Posts
Broad shit -When you die, you cease to exist. No happiness, no pain, just nothing. If there is an afterlife I'll be pleasantly surprised -Dying is fine as long as I'm fulfilled. -if people start fucking on my kitchen table (or garden or w/e they did), then I'm kicking them the hell out of my house. Specifics -Human thoughts are a real force to be reckoned with. You can't see them, but they have real physical results. -Human desire is a part of nature. It's a natural force and humans are part of a special niche that must be balanced with everything else. On happiness and life in general -Happiness comes through the filter in which you view the world. -Happiness can be aided or hindered by connections with other people, specifically the opposite sex. -You must have personal boundaries (the fucking on the table in the broad thing). To not have them is to not be a person. -You must define these boundaries yourself, guided by society (includes family, friends, role models, etc.) -Everything will change. Welcome it. Everything is temporary. I'm still not fulfilled, and I haven't defined all my personal boundaries. Some things in my life still control me, but I'm working on them. These are most of my major philosophical thoughts in a nutshell [edit: each one of these statements has much more latent meaning than what somebody just reading posts on tl would initially read into, so I'll explain the "You must have personal boundaries" one] I'm stealing the wording of this idea from dune: the power to destroy something is absolute power over it. When somebody asks you to do something (simple as a friend asks you to go out to eat), you either have choices as determined by your personal boundary (and other factors like money/transportation but this is just an example) or you don't. If you don't have a personal boundary, or clearly self-defined values of things you find permissible and things you don't, then you have no power to say no. If you have the power to say no and destroy the future experience of going out to eat, then you have control over it. If you're the kind of person who just goes along with shit, just because, and when somebody asks you "what do you wanna do?" and you go "I dunno" a lot, then you lack these personal boundaries. This applies to every single decision of everybody's life. Everybody's life is really just a sum of the decisions that's led them to that point. Ok well actually going out to eat was a bad example, but if you can grasp what I'm saying then its all good. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
We are suffering from semantic confusion, but I take objectivity to be the scientific ideal of separation of subject and object, practised in the scientific method. Objectivism historically seen, a neoplatonic, systematic, rationalist approach to reality which largely displaced the aristotilean/empirical scholasticism of the late middle ages, between the time of Copernicus and Max Planck, and reaching its apex sometime during the 19th century. Two questions relating to the present applicability of objective thinking: 1) If objectivism, for our relationship with matter only, or also for our relationship with other men? and 2) Do you accept the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics? The former question relates to the differences between physical and social science. The latter deals with the relevance of the objective method to all science. A final question, even if you endorse "objectivity" in many fields of learning, can you endorse it in self-existential questions? Is not "objectivity" in this application a negation of reality? i.e. it's one thing to separate yourself from a cage of lab mice, but another to separate yourself from yourself. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
On June 22 2009 12:33 Weaponx3 wrote: there are laws and regulations depending on where we are that we must follow this do not mean just because it is legal it is right. can u explain why u have this sense of right and wrong and how they so well fall in line with what God's ten commandments. Morality is entirely relative. The reason people have a "sense of right and wrong" is because we internalize certain behavioral rules from an early age, and those behavioral rules come from a particular social location. The very fact that people disagree with each other on questions of morality demonstrates this. It's ridiculous to assert that there is some objective measure of morality. Even if the christian god exists, what makes his opinion on morality more valid than mine? | ||
| ||
