I'm still reading this thread. Dammit. Silver lining: Obviously I wasn't off reading Wiki articles writing all this. Hey. I had to go find something: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?104108-How-can-a-nihilist-be-happy/page3 Admit it. I was good in this one. Lana? Lana. LANAAAAA!
I quote her, deconstructed her philosophies by her words, what more do you need? Yes, I agree, if your going to disregard everything I say that not meaningful discussion of any sort. Here we were discussing school funding and that translates as "yup" in your mind? I'm going to be honest, seriously honest: I did not read a word of what you said after this point. Why should I? You have no belief in this being "meaningful discussion" so why even bother to try? Why are you even replying to me, what is the reason?
Oh. Upon reading further, that thread I mentioned above goes a long toward explaining my position on this as well: They're both saying the same thing; only their values differ. Life is simply a matter of aesthetics. I often feel I should see despair as a lesser response than ... carpe diem. But I don't. I vacillate. I have the capability to appreciate a work of art; but I do not seek art in order to feel an appreciation of it. Nor do I create art, despite the nagging feeling that I should. I'm neither Nietzsche nor Schopenhauer. I lean more toward the latter; perhaps, though, it is that I do not fully understand Nietzsche. Gendanken's little gibe regarding my nihilism was not misplaced. I do feel, however, that I lack the capability to explain fully why "nothingness" doesn't exist, for me. While on the subject of Lefty, I feel I should clarify something: All I've seen of him is the one thread where he got stuck into Fraggle. Now, I may not agree with everything Fraggle says, and I can state with certainty that his view on life and mine are not compatible at all. I don't, to be completely honest, even respect how long it takes to get Fraggle riled up. But my respect there comes from a single source: the man is a fountain of knowledge. Regardless of whether one may agree with him or not, he contributes to this place. Yes, he can be a pretentious bastard at times, but then so can I. I've never been averse to an opposing opinion supported by an arsenal of research and the ability to construct a reasoned argument in support of it. I've never been averse to a heated discussion. Swear at me all you like, as long as you have something to say. But I'm aware that Fraggle is not of that ilk; and thus he has an exemption from my... well, me. I felt compelled to wade in with a baseball bat. Not because he was being attacked, nor in general because of how. Rather, because someone deserving of at least a modicum of respect was being afforded none. It matters not a jot if Fraggle himself thought he needed defending. There are very few on this site I'll defend in that manner. Very few. Respect, for me, is a rare and complicated thing. So you keep saying. I have a confession to make. And this note is not only for you. I don't read much anymore. I've used several excuses, my suddenly needing glasses since a year or so ago being one of them. The truth, though, is that I simply don't need to. I haven't read anything for years which hasn't eventually bored me. I once had a library, and it was stolen. But I don't feel that loss as I once did. People say to me: you should read this. I'll think yeah... yeah. Ummm. They do... but I'm wary nonetheless. I don't even like myself telling me what to value, and I trust myself not at all. I may be truly fucked. For a while, I think. This thread has actually been interesting. I had the chance to talk about me, for starters, albeit perhaps in the same manner Jackson Pollock paints. Speaking of which, once in an art class I was asked to paint a jungle. The result looked much like one of his paintings. The teacher frowned at me when she saw it. I was too young to understand why; I only wondered what I'd done wrong.
There’s a reason why things happen but things don’t happen for a reason. You shouldn't be so concerned about the latter. Nothingness does not exist. Death does not exist and nihilism is a fraud. A crank told me the same thing once. He said that I should read less and think more, but I love to read. Glasses; well, where would we be without refraction? In the Reign of the King of Whirl: The Conditions of Morality by Allen Wheelis Spoiler Certainty is not to be had. But as we learn this we become not more moral but more resigned. We become nihilists. If we know nothing for sure, how can we ever know we are right? And if we can never know we are right, how can we act? We can live without truths if we must, but quietly. But to defend good an attack evil means killing people, and how can we do that without being sure? The longer we are paralyzed by this nostalgia for lost certainty the deeper our nihilism. To go back is not possible; to go on requires that we give up the demand for certainty, become willing to act in a field of probable goods and probable evils, "to fight a lie" as Richard Hilary said, "in the name of a half truth." Once we leave the mythical realm of certainty and enter the real world where all is contingent and temporary, we find immediately, as a great bonus, that we are already beyond nihilism. We are not in chaos, as we had feared, but in some agreement of what is wrong and what is right. Agreement is never complete, never yields certainty, but it is more than a random throw. Nihilism and Reason Spoiler He tells a story that took place at a pastry shop. My wife and I order sandwiches and coffee, a couple with a child, sit at the next table. The boy’s knee upsets the glass of milk, it falls. The snap of glass and splash of milk is followed a moment later by another sound, something like the crack of a rifle; the boys head jerks back. After a moment he begins to cry. His father stares at him unspeaking, unmoving. All faces are toward the family, all eyes on the man who now slaps the boy again, his hand like rapier, quicker than a reflex, the child can’t see it coming, there’s no time to flinch: again that rifle shot, and the boy’s head jerks back. The outline of the father’s hand appears like a negative on his son’s cheek, finger’s white, outlined in red. There is a murmur of protest. Ladies whisper disapproval. His mother is dismayed but does not intervene, does not protect, wipes away his tears with her napkin. I think the child feels her sympathy; she is telling him that this is all that is safe, that she would do more if she could. The man is carved stone, impaling the boy on a murderous stare. The man moves not a muscle; his controlled fury does not subside. His gaze remains fixed on the convulsed boy and his expression does not alter. A minute passes. The mother daubs at her son’s face. There it is again, that rifle shot. His head jerks back again. The murmur grows louder: “What a shame!” “He didn't mean to do it!”’ “It was an accident!” I turn away, cannot bear to look. A young couple beside us is silent. The girl has lowered her head, the young man is staring at the father, his shoulders hunched forward, muscles as if they would burst out of the yellow tennis shirt. Where is nihilism now? Oh, and Fraggle, the pacifist, I see him as an outdated jungian with a sexist twang.
To think this is what religious women do - now that's some real misogyny. Why do people insist in this dichotomy of emotion vs. reason?
Hm. Good example. I'm not sure the dichotomy rational vs. emotive is particularly meaningful. Probably the biggest differences between the philanthropic projects of someone like Gates and the philanthropic projects of average person is that Gates has 1. much more funds at his disposal, 2. he is already an important social figure, 3. he has many important social, political and business connections, 4. he has the knowledge and the human and other resources to organize his philanthropic projects well. An ordinary person has none of these. Things tend to go wrong when the helper has little or no resources of their own and has to ask help from others in order to help people.
Well, they are more religious than men are, are they not? Why is that, wynn? Maybe it's true. I don't know.
According to whose standards of religiosity? Some atheist's? Of all the religious sources I know, I've never heard them state that women would be more religious than men. In fact, the usual lament is that being in a female body is a drawback in terms of religiosity. People seeing things in a particular way doesn't automatically make it so.
Aye. So you what... expend half a page of energy? You haven't changed, Quixote. I'm the switch operator. If nothing else, you'll know how I perceive myself.
So do I. For a moment. Not hilarity, though... more the "I'm on the net" internal smile. Straight face type ROFLMAO. You need to separate the writer from the writing. Take only what is of value, leave aside that which is not. Remember me talking, once? Robert E howard wrote Conan. It doesn't matter who she was. It doesn't matter where she came from. And, Gendanken, it doesn't matter how she got there. Only the message matters, when considering one whom one does not know. How lucky we are, to have so many words to choose from. How lucky we are to have so much information from which we might have assistance through which we might define ourselves. A teenage bride with a baby inside Getting high on information And buy me a star on the boulevard It's Californication Red Hot Chili Peppers - Californication Ummmm.... Sun does the big kablooey, do you not wish you could be one of the cockroaches surviving it all?
And there's the thing. Hit and Miss, Trooper said. Wynn has something to say, no doubt. Wynn is really easy to offend. After that, she gets irrational in defense of herself. It's not exclusive to this thread, but all of them. Make no mistake; history colours responses. You know that. Itsone of the reasons we all keep coming back here rather than finding somewhere else. Right? History facilitates connection. No one with half an clue would say Wynn has nothing to contribute. Personally, If I had carte blanche to expel anyone I saw fit, Wynn would not be on the list. Wynn just needs to learn how to take it. Her main downfall is the purely emotional response. She needs to isolate that shit. Compartmentalise. This shit ain't personal. It's cyberspace. Separate. Isolate. Elucidate. Fucked if I'm going to cater to anyone's delicate sensibilities. Got no real respect for the delicate snowflakes.
And a means by which one can throw a large image onto a wall. One liner, two liner, three liner, four.
The woman was a hack. She knew how to play the crowd. The woman thought suffering brought people closer to Jesus, for goodness sake. She did not strive to alleviate it so much as she strove to ensure its continuity. She has also been criticised for her view on suffering. She felt that suffering would bring people closer to Jesus.[2][3] Sanal Edamaruku, President of Rationalist International, criticised the failure to give painkillers, writing that in her Homes for the Dying, one could "hear the screams of people having maggots tweezered from their open wounds without pain relief. On principle, strong painkillers were not administered even in severe cases. According to Mother Teresa's philosophy, it is 'the most beautiful gift for a person that he can participate in the sufferings of Christ'." Will maggot for Christ. There's a visual we all wanted to have. I suppose I could have lit some candles, sacrificed an animal of some kind and prayed interspersed with vocal renditions of Kumbaya. Or I could have made use of actual change and the medical advances that could cure me. It was a tough decision.
I saw this few days ago and really liked it. [video=youtube_share;pMWU8dEKwXw]http://youtu.be/pMWU8dEKwXw[/video]
Two out of three, ain't bad... You're going to have to give me your definition of a crank, you know. More than once, I think, you've used that word. I'd never tell you any such thing. The underlying question being, of course, do you think I'm a crank? Or are you making up your mind? I'll admit to being cranky, if it helps. In the Reign of the King of Whirl: The Conditions of Morality by Allen Wheelis Spoiler Certainty is not to be had. But as we learn this we become not more moral but more resigned. We become nihilists. If we know nothing for sure, how can we ever know we are right? And if we can never know we are right, how can we act? We can live without truths if we must, but quietly. But to defend good an(d?) attack evil means killing people, and how can we do that without being sure? The longer we are paralyzed by this nostalgia for lost certainty the deeper our nihilism. To go back is not possible; to go on requires that we give up the demand for certainty, become willing to act in a field of probable goods and probable evils, "to fight a lie" as Richard Hilary said, "in the name of a half truth." Once we leave the mythical realm of certainty and enter the real world where all is contingent and temporary, we find immediately, as a great bonus, that we are already beyond nihilism. We are not in chaos, as we had feared, but in some agreement of what is wrong and what is right. Agreement is never complete, never yields certainty, but it is more than a random throw. Not bad, Mr Wheelis. Not bad at all. Fighting a lie in the name of a half truth. Yes. However, and I say this in full knowledge that I risk being perceived as specious... why not? To my mind, Wheelis is speaking of the "man who is whole" in much the same manner Rand speaks of Rearden. I doubt either would admit to that man's existence. I do like the reference to the random throw, though. I play poker, you see. I'm doing it right now. It's taken me a little over three hours to write this post, because I have my mind on something else; and yet my mind is here, too. Certainty is not to be had. Does that detract from the enjoyment of playing the game? "But to defend good an(d?) attack evil means killing people, and how can we do that without being sure?" This question is bothering me. There is something about it I'll address, maybe, at some point. It's in the latter part. I am a nihilist, but I don't care. It's fun anyway. Why should it not be? Nothingness doesn't exist. Death doesn't exist. My nihilism does. My spleen does too; but I need not contemplate it every hour of every day. I need not take any action. Nihilism doesn't demand action. It demands nothing at all. Are you thinking of it in terms of believing in nothing, or in terms of the belief that there is nothing that has any ultimate meaning? I'm too distracted to think about Nietzsche. An old friend, here where he always was. The bird or insect that stumbles into a room and cannot find the window. Because they know no "windows." Jim Morrison - The Lords - Notes on Vision. I think Morrison wasn't clear on this one. I would have spoken about the fly that batters itself against glass. Or perhaps he said exactly what he meant to say. I've been thinking about that for a while now. Eh. A moment. Today was tomorrow, yesterday. Lefty's alright. I daydream of that house. In order to have it, though, I would need to submit... to something. Perhaps myself. Still on the same bottle of Bushmills. Bulleit, for me, Lefty. Jacks isn't bad either, of course. I do contemplate my liver from time to time.
There is an 84 year old out here, a Johnnnie Walker fan, who says he is still alive because he flushes out his liver with a six-pack on Sunday. It may be medicine, religion or bullshit, the man is still alive. To our lovely, resilient flower if she reads this, there are many ways to take on a challenge.
If you're referring to my edit note, it was for someone else. Fetus is just me twiddling my thumbs, but I do agree your friend is engaging. Twiddling my thumbs... now where did I get that from? Something is tickling my mind. I was invited to the movies, you see, but I think I may have been stood up. I sat down and watched the movie anyway, because I was here.... but I think they may turn out the lights soon. Of course, it may be something like a car breaking down in a storm. And if she is reading this: Sometimes rice on a stove is just that... Jane? *Edit - Got it. Asimov, I, Robot.
