the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Sun May 10, 2015 3:28 am

I also would probably never stab someone on my front porch, im case you're wondering :)
I'm quite certain that you would stab someone on your porch. And depending on the context, it would be judged moral or immoral - objectively. If the mailman was trying to strangle you, then it would be moral to stab him. If the mailman was late with the mail, then it would be immoral to stab him.
Is that just my subjective opinion?
There is no objective morality. Not even one that you can anchor on organic causes.... I want to believe that every mother loves her children, but alas.
You guys are really stuck on that word 'EVERY'.
Our physical bodies are, after all made of all the same stuff. I can't call that objectivity, though, as darling anfang pointed out once. That's an inter-subjectivity. This is what we work with in order to make laws.
What is the basis of inter-subjectivity if everyone is so unique and different? What would a group of people want to share these laws? Why are laws against murder, theft, incest, so common?
One can only convince oneself is what I said.
The whole point of the socratic method is to cause one to be convinced by one's own reasoning.
That's why you are answering Socrates' questions. But why is Socrates talking to you in the first place? What's his motivation if not to convince you of some truth?
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phyllo » Sun May 10, 2015 3:30 pm

Medical science enables us to grasp objectively why women become pregnant. And it enables doctors to perform abortions based on an objective knowledge of human biology as it pertains to terminating a pregnancy.

But when it comes to pinning down precisely when, after conception, the unborn becomes a "human being", science seems unable to determine beyond all doubt when this is. And they certainly seem unable to determine if abortion either is or is not moral.
Sounds like what you call objective knowledge in science is narrowing. You seem to be saying that if there is some uncertainty or alternative interpretation then it qualifies as subjective. Even when the underlying mechanisms are objective.
No, what we have is you insisting that the "scientific facts" from your link, in being in alignment with your own moral convictions, have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. What we don't have is you demonstrating that the "scientific facts" from my link are necessarily wrong.
Actually I did not insist on anything... I presented a way to approach a problem. An approach based on objective research.
You did not show that the research wrong but you instead linked to an alternative concept when a human being 'begins existing'.

Let's say that I accept your link as being correct. What are the consequences?
Clearly we still think that it is moral to end the existence of human beings under certain circumstances. It is done for comatose patients. So there have to other factors which play a role in determining the morality of the acts. My link, which shows that a fetus less than 22 weeks old cannot survive outside the womb, is such a factor. And it is not incompatible with the definition of humanness.

BTW, if a fetus is a human being at fertilization and that is the only factor to consider, then what should we do about spontaneous abortion? Spontaneous abortion happens to 30 to 40% of fetuses. Should not the women, who spontaneously abort, be charged with murder, manslaughter, assault or child abuse?
There you go again, avoiding the need to actually answer my questions by insisting that only you get to say if I am entitled to even raise them.

From my point of view, once one has committed himself to a particular denominational God, it is absurd to imagine that He can be excised from a discussion that revolves around the extent to which our moral agendas are said to be either true objectively or merely rooted subjectively in dasein.
How are you going to solve any problem if you are unable or 'unallowed' to step out of your shoes and put on another person's shoes?
The idea that one cannot drop a certain set of assumptions and look from an alternative POV is absurd.

Why do I refuse to bring God into it? Because I want you to drop your assumptions long enough to consider where objectivity of morality might be in the abortion problem. And that means getting down to bare minimums at least temporarily.

I still don't think that you grasp what I am saying about objectivity. I'm probably not being clear but my only hope of becoming clear is to remove as much muddy water as possible.
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 11311
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 9:16 pm

Notice how the imbecile ignores every single post I write?

His excuse: I am not discussing the topic.

I am not "down to earth".

In other words, I am not agreeing with him.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 9:19 pm

The retard wants me to accept his premises as true.

Me being outside of his premises is me being "up into the stratosphere of abstractions".

Him being trapped within his absurd premises is him being on the ground.

This is how stupid he is.

No questioning of his premises allowed.

The moment you question them, the moment you are accused of being too abstract.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 9:26 pm

The mentally stunted abortion of a child-fagot has been on this website since 2010. Has he been doing anything but tirelessly reasserting his didactic assertions?

Here's a topic from a year ago, where I deal with him in a ratatata manner.
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 4#p2484604

Back then I didn't read his posts, because he was so boring and so stupid no reading was necessary.

It's funny it is only now that I realize that he's been saying EXACTLY the same things he's saying now.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Sun May 10, 2015 9:44 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Notice how the imbecile ignores every single post I write?
.


Yes, but that would contradict your absurd and insulting statement that; "The retard wants me to accept his premises as true.".
If that were the case, he'd hardly be ignoring you.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 9:54 pm

You are an idiot Lev, we all know that, now go fuck yourself.

Back on topic.

The retard thinks there is such a thing as "free will".

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 5#p2486335
Me wrote:The question is not "how ought I to live?" There is no such a thing as "free will". Our strength is predetermined which means that we do not "choose" our strength. That said, it is our strength, which is predetermined, that determines how we ought to live, and since people are of unequal strength, people ought to live unequal lives.


heisbigot wrote:Hmm. So you are now arguing that, with respect to abortion, the psychological health needed by the pregnant woman to make the right choice, the strong choice, the choice most worthy of respect is...inherent? She does not autonomously choose whether or not to abort but is merely embedded [embodied] in the causal chain --- the dead baby being just the next domino to fall?

And the same with the exchange we are having? We "choose" the words here that must be chosen given that we are not actually free to choose other words instead?

The same with our emotional reactions here?

And what difference [really] does it make whether "healthy solutions are available to unhealthy people" or not? After all, it's not like any of this is something that they bring about of their own free will.

Doesn't seem very "heroic" when it's all reduced down to mattter interacting in the only way that matter is able to interact: through the immutable laws of physics, chemistry, neurology etc.


Makes sense, considering he's a Christian.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Lev Muishkin » Sun May 10, 2015 10:49 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:You are an idiot Lev, we all know that, now go fuck yourself..


I think not.

"Science is entirely Faith Based.... Obama is Muslim....Evil is the opposition to life (e-v-i-l <=> l-i-v-e ... and not by accident). Without evil there could be no life.", James S. Saint.
"The Holocaust was the fault of the Jews; The Holocaust was not genocide", Kriswest
"A Tortoise is a Turtle", Wizard
" Hitler didn't create the Nazis. In reality, the Judists did ... for a purpose of their own. Hitler was merely one they chose to head it up after they discovered the Judist betrayal in WW1, their "Judas Iscariot";James S Saint.
These just keep getting funnier.
User avatar
Lev Muishkin
Philosopher
 
Posts: 4037
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:58 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 10, 2015 10:50 pm

Magnus Anderson wrote:Notice how the imbecile ignores every single post I write?


I don't know how to make it any clearer:

With respect to moral and political value judgments [about which the OP is aimed], my argument [here and now] revolves around this:

If I am always of the opinion that 1] my own values are rooted in dasein and 2] that there are no objective values "I" can reach, then every time I make one particular moral/political leap, I am admitting that I might have gone in the other direction...or that I might just as well have gone in the other direction. Then "I" begins to fracture and fragment to the point there is nothing able to actually keep it all together. At least not with respect to choosing sides morally and politically.

What I am curious about are arguments from others able to poke enough holes in it so that I might be able to reconsider it as perhaps a less than reasonable manner in which to construe the "human condition" sans God.

Instead, I tend to bump into the abstractionists like you and Lyssa and Satyr -- scholastic sorts who spew out intellectual contraptions that have almost nothing whatsoever to do with the lives that we live.

All I am trying to do here is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, you can pick the topic.


Even Lyssa [over at KTS] is now willing to scratch the surface in this regard.
Last edited by iambiguous on Sun May 10, 2015 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32664
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 10:50 pm

Lev, are you fucking follow me?

The retard must be told how to live.

There must be a God who will tell him "listen kid, do this, and you go to heaven, or do that, and you go to hell".

Or if there is no God, then all is permissible.

Moral obligation, he calls it.

He does not understand that when I say that he's an utter imbecile that does not mean that he is morally obliged to become an intelligent person.

He's so stupid, for fuck's sake!

The retard can't stand social judgment!

He will even listen to me! if I were only convincing enough!

But I am not . . . And why am I not convincing enough?

Because people disagree . . .

He will do what I tell him to do and I'll go like "good doggy!"

That would make happy.

But then, he will come across this other group of people who will make fun of him for doing what I told him to do . . .

So, in order to be convincing enough, I'd have to take him as my personal slave, lock him in one of my basements, so that he has no contact with other people, and so that the only judge on whether he is a good doggy or not would be ME.

But as an emancipated slave, out in the world of conflicting goods, freed from any kind of singular human authority, he does not find me convincing enough.

I must become popular first.

I must be aired on his big plasma TV.

Songs must be sang about me.

Girls must be crazy about me.

That kind of shit.

Since that's not the case, I am just an objectivist who's pretending to be an "alpha male" . . .
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 11:06 pm

All I am trying to do here is to actually engage your words down here. Why in the world is that something you always avoid?

Again, you can pick the topic.


Sure, let's talk about abortion. Let's talk about John and Mary.

Mary accidentally got pregnant.

To abort or not to abort?

John says "yes", cause they are not ready for a family.
Mary says "no", cause she says it's a murder.

Who's right, who's wrong, I say John, because he's rational whereas Mary is emotional.

So now what, dude.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Sun May 10, 2015 11:26 pm

In his anecdote Mary aborts without John's consent.
Was John being emotional in wanting to participate in the decision?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 11:27 pm

Someone questioned the distinction between superior and inferior earlier.

How naive.

Superior/inferior refers to what promotes life and what promotes death.

You can abstract it further by relating it to a goal, but I take it for granted that we all agree that life is superior to death.

Superior/inferior not in relation to other people, but in relation to one's past self.

We change, we either become superior or we become inferior.

We decide, to either become superior or to become inferior.

Lift some weights, see what I'm talking about.

Make some good decisions, see what becoming superior means.

Make some bad decisions, see what becoming inferior means.

No need to compare to other people, so don't confuse it with hyper-masculine vanity.

Other people's inferiority, such as that of iambigot, becomes a problem when it becomes a problem for those of us who are pro-life.

Why is iambigot a problem? Because his suicidal way of thinking corrupts people's minds . . .

He is a deadly virus spreading across memetic lines.

Not all inferior creatures are problematic. Pugs are inferior but I find pugs to be cute little monsters.

Image
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 11:29 pm

phoneutria wrote:In his anecdote Mary aborts without John's consent.
Was John being emotional in wanting to participate in the decision?


As usual, I don't understand what you're talking about.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Sun May 10, 2015 11:32 pm

I am not saying you are stupid, phoneutria, I believe you are a very smart girl, beside being extremely sexy, of course, just that, I, me, Magnus, do not understand what you're talking about . . . as usual.

Must be your charm.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby iambiguous » Sun May 10, 2015 11:38 pm

phyllo wrote:
Medical science enables us to grasp objectively why women become pregnant. And it enables doctors to perform abortions based on an objective knowledge of human biology as it pertains to terminating a pregnancy.

But when it comes to pinning down precisely when, after conception, the unborn becomes a "human being", science seems unable to determine beyond all doubt when this is. And they certainly seem unable to determine if abortion either is or is not moral.


Sounds like what you call objective knowledge in science is narrowing. You seem to be saying that if there is some uncertainty or alternative interpretation then it qualifies as subjective. Even when the underlying mechanisms are objective.


No, I am merely pointing out the obvious. That with respect to the biology of human sexuality leading to a pregnancy leading to an abortion, there there objective truths that transcend dasein.

Facts, in other words, that are not predicated on a subjective interpretation. A man and a woman either engage in sexual copulation or they do not. The woman either becomes pregnant as a result of this or she does not. And if she does become pregnant and chooses an abortion, it is either successful or it is not.

But where is the same either/or denouement with respect to the precise moment when, after conception, a zygote, embryo or fetus becomes a "human being". Some will even go further and make a distinction between a "human being" and a "human person". That way they are even able to rationalize infanticide.

No, what we have is you insisting that the "scientific facts" from your link, in being in alignment with your own moral convictions, have been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt. What we don't have is you demonstrating that the "scientific facts" from my link are necessarily wrong.


phyllo wrote:Actually I did not insist on anything... I presented a way to approach a problem. An approach based on objective research.


What you said above is this:

Scientifically documented.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_viab ... thresholds
Therefore, it is moral to abort a fetus before week 22. Objective reasoning.


Therefore, I surmised that you surmised it is objectively moral to a abort the fetus because the science in the link had objectively established it. Then I provided you with a link that suggested this is not the case at all.

Then I acknowledged here that science does not seem able to establish beyond all doubt when in fact the unborn becomes a human being. Objectively.

I'm not trying to argue here that my point of view is right or that your point of view is wrong. I am only suggesting that it is a point of view that is predicated on certain conflicting assumptions that are made regarding when the unborn become human beings.

And even if that can be decided objectively, we are still stuck living in a world where if all unborn babies are required to be brought to term, then any number of women will be forced to give birth.

In other words, the part about conflicting goods doesn't just go away.

phyllo wrote: BTW, if a fetus is a human being at fertilization and that is the only factor to consider, then what should we do about spontaneous abortion? Spontaneous abortion happens to 30 to 40% of fetuses. Should not the women, who spontaneously abort, be charged with murder, manslaughter, assault or child abuse?


You should take that up with God. Aren't these God's own abortions? And why should the women be held culpable when in most cases they do everything they possible can to secure the birth of their child. In fact, most are devastated when the baby dies.

But then God does work in mysterious ways, right?

There you go again, avoiding the need to actually answer my questions by insisting that only you get to say if I am entitled to even raise them.

From my point of view, once one has committed himself to a particular denominational God, it is absurd to imagine that He can be excised from a discussion that revolves around the extent to which our moral agendas are said to be either true objectively or merely rooted subjectively in dasein.


phyllo wrote: How are you going to solve any problem if you are unable or 'unallowed' to step out of your shoes and put on another person's shoes?
The idea that one cannot drop a certain set of assumptions and look from an alternative POV is absurd.


But the thrust of the OP revolves precisely around the manner in which certain folks do embrace a particular religious or political narrative/agenda and then claim that moral certitude is derived from the assumption that their God or their Reason is there to back them up.

Now, in that respect, yours either is or is not. And you will either discuss that pertaining to an issue like abortion or you will not.

phyllo wrote: Why do I refuse to bring God into it? Because I want you to drop your assumptions long enough to consider where objectivity of morality might be in the abortion problem. And that means getting down to bare minimums at least temporarily.


Come on, Phyllo, we know what the objectivists mean when they assert something like that. They mean that they have already assertained what the "bare minimums" are here and that this almost always revolves around agreeing with them that this is in fact what the bare minimums must be.
Last edited by iambiguous on Mon May 11, 2015 6:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
He was like a man who wanted to change all; and could not; so burned with his impotence; and had only me, an infinitely small microcosm to convert or detest. John Fowles

Start here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=176529
Then here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
And here: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=194382
User avatar
iambiguous
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 32664
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:03 pm
Location: baltimore maryland

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 12:05 am

Magnus Anderson wrote:
phoneutria wrote:In his anecdote Mary aborts without John's consent.
Was John being emotional in wanting to participate in the decision?


As usual, I don't understand what you're talking about.


Really? You read those two sentences, and you don't understand them, in the context of your post previous to it?
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 12:22 am

Does that make you feel smart.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 12:44 am

No, just slightly perplexed.
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 12:58 am

Whatever, you are boring.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby phoneutria » Mon May 11, 2015 1:07 am

Yo mamma doesn't think so.
Zing!
phoneutria
purveyor of enchantment, advocate of pulchritude AND venomously disarming
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 5:37 am

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Moreno » Mon May 11, 2015 1:01 pm

Who's right, who's wrong, I say John, because he's rational whereas Mary is emotional.


In his anecdote Mary aborts without John's consent.
Was John being emotional in wanting to participate in the decision?


As usual, I don't understand what you're talking about.


This exchange is really rather amazing. Especially in the context of...


Superior/inferior refers to what promotes life and what promotes death.


In the first quote we have two processes for reaching a conclusion - at least it is assumed that there are two different processes. Process A is rational, process B is emotional, therefore process A is right. As if one cannot rationally reach incorrect conclusions (or emotionally come up with correct ones). I'll leave aside the issue of whether one can assess something like 'readiness to have a child' (at least in most of the West) without emotional and intuitive processes being involved.

The second quote is putting pressure on the binary thinking present in quote one. That this is not clear strikes me as very odd.

Then that this all happens not far from the last quote, where Superior promotes life and Inferior promotes death just adds even more strangeness. Are we to suppose that rationality in this instance is inferior because it is promoting death. Or are we to assume that the rational man could somehow weigh, rationally, the total sum of 'life' including things like, say, added stress since the man must work more overtime to pay for Huggies. And this is a reduction of life, his, and one can create a mathematical inventory and decide that there is less life with the added child if the pregnancy is allowed to come to term.

And just a jump to the side: wouldn't it be strange if emotional decisions were inferior and wrong, per se, given that the most powerful and dominant animals on earth, including of course, us, are social mammals with powerful emotions. You would think we would be more like robots if emotionless decision making was the best.

(no offense intended towards Araneae, though I must say that in general they seem to make decisions based on preferences rather than emotions)
User avatar
Moreno
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10305
Joined: Sat Nov 24, 2007 5:46 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 2:58 pm

How far can a thing resembling a brain go in order to deny rank is something we can infer from the post above.

Dude what the fuck are you talking about.

Putting pressure on what, you mean on my patience. Do you really think I will bother responding to phoneutria's low level of intelligence and high level of pretense?

Mary is retarded because her goal is a short-term one, not a long-term one.

She cares not about the family, she cares only about her feelings.

She is inferior because she is prone to self-deception.

Now ask yourself what's the point of your stupid post.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Magnus Anderson » Mon May 11, 2015 3:01 pm

Now please, go ahead, let us see you argue that blindness is equal to vision.
User avatar
Magnus Anderson
Philosopher
 
Posts: 3777
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

Re: the psychology of objectivism - one possible narrative

Postby Arcturus Descending » Mon May 11, 2015 3:02 pm

With the truth, all given facts harmonize; but with what is false, the truth soon hits a wrong note.”


“For he who lives as passion directs will not hear argument that dissuades him, nor understand it if he does; and how can we persuade one in such a state to change his ways?”


― Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics
"Look closely. The beautiful may be small."


"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily we reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me."


“Whereas the beautiful is limited, the sublime is limitless, so that the mind in the presence of the sublime, attempting to imagine what it cannot, has pain in the failure but pleasure in contemplating the immensity of the attempt.”

Immanuel Kant
User avatar
Arcturus Descending
Consciousness Seeker
 
Posts: 15576
Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: A state of unknowing

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]