I did not say make money worthless. Control the money.
No. I have. It’s pretty amazing that you think an obsession with Joker and Nietzsche is anti conformist when they’re both internationally recognizable icons.
That’s like me being like “Hey guys have you heard of this indie band the Beatles? No you wouldn’t get it you’re a conformist.”
Oh god. A philosophy forum full of Nietzsche fans. You’re right. This is completely new. You’re the first.
You criticize without offering anything of substance yourself by comparison and you don’t even make the attempt to argue my beliefs.
What makes you so much better by comparison? What’s your philosophy?
Who cares? None of that would negate how ridiculous you behave.
What do you think you’re proving by saying that? Pointing out the weapon, or the method isn’t a defense. You don’t yell “knife”, or “This isn’t a fair way of making a point.” when someone’s stabbing you and sit back all smug expecting them to stop.
As I said in the other thread with this ongoing public crusade of yours against me I am an absurdist where for me all of the human world is a sick comedy and joke. For somebody like me at times acting ridiculous or absurd myself is just fun and makes sense in an equally ridiculous world. Why do you take the world so seriously?
Why can’t you see the human world’s ridiculous nature like I can? It’s all a big a joke and I am just a sinister cynical joker that likes to make it all be known.
At any rate, I would like to know your philosophies, beliefs, and perceptions. I am sure that I could find flaws with them all day and everyday.
The economy already collapsed, most Americans are broke, and their money is more or less a formless entity.
america has a self-sufficient economy, we have engineers that can build their own things, and we have farms that produce our own foods. Short of a food crisis I don’t see any rioting going on, we might have a couple angry yuppies that complain about not being able to have the latest iphones cause the parts won’t ship overseas. If most of the population can’t work they wil just resort to increased handouts/lacadaziliness, the only way for actual rioting is if there is a food crisis or the government starts banning guns or evicting people out of their homes.
As you say below, ultimately we have to admit that what we distinguish as part and whole are the very same thing, and we are arbitrarily making a distinction for our own benefit.
We are identifying. This occurs with a cause. But I am willing to admit to this cause to such an extent that I allow it to signify the parameters of the result a priori.
In other words, to place the part as primary to the whole is a calculated choice. Not so much an analytical analysis of ‘what is’ – after all, as you seem to realize quite well, this sort of search leads only to magnificent symmetries, of which the root is finally seen to lie in a deep discrepancy of being to itself;
and all this, in turn, occurs simply within the human mind – as of ‘what gives’. It is not certain that we touch reality; but it is certain that we influence how we approach nature. Which is to say we influence reality, even without directly, or at least without accurately assessing it.
There is only the accuracy of the assessor. What he assesses, as he does make a sustained effort to assess as accurately as he can, is his own power-value.
Then this -
This is a remarkably useful analogy; I’m calling the toss, as I’ve seen the way it tends to land if it is thrown a certain way.
There never is formal certainty; not in philosophy and surely not in politics.
A war is always a riddle to the end.
“Who the hell is winning this war?” all the parties involved wonder; only madmen have certainty, and only the collective efforts of mad certain men determine the outcome; a war is a puzzle, the pieces need to be put into their place by trial and error; and no light errors. Not to speak of the trials.
Still, even in the face of these harrowing odds, uncertainty is the best card to play.
The math of this world is as follows; some bet on certainty. All those that do are left out of the equation. The game is between those who aim for the uncertain state.
Within that top tier group, there is a different mechanic. A game where the runes are being discovered as they players make their moves and take their losses. In this game I have faith, regardless of who is in it; I have faith in power to, when it is well differentiated and exalted in that clarity, act on the more subtle threads of cause and case, the deeper, philosophically elucidated wisdom of the ages at their side, as only in this context is philosophy ever considered as she is; the most powerful thing on earth besides the elements.
(Thus, philosophy of the elements is highly useful - elements, which bypass the distinction between part and whole; elements are neither part nor whole, they are possibilities. These are the properly positive … elements of being. Division of electoral processes into elements (and colors) is clever alchemy. It takes the parts out of the equation.)
I’m not familiar with Husserl. Is he an instrumentalist? (‘Organizationalist’?)
It can be done now. People aren’t realizing but these elections, to point out one of many facts, are transparent as hell. The systemic candidates are nowhere to be heard, and the chaotic balance of nihilism pushes forward all sorts of extremities and particularities.
Compare this to the docile electorate that came and put up with “W” - that was a feeble leftover of a bloating meal, now we have a dirty grease in a pan that is starting to melt,a a beginning of chaos.
I am optimistic that power will no longer be attainable except by applied philosophy, within the next 12 years.
It would not be the first time in history. When man ascends from great depths he always reaches shamelessly for the most glorifying means.
I am glad to see agreement, with another poster as well, on this practical matter; where philosophy ends, we enter the courtroom. From there, the fruits of this most intensely concentrated effort trickle into politics, which’ task is the minimally interfere and do clerks work; in fact politics should be wholly reduced to the clerks work of legislative procedure performed by the most demonstrably capable minds.
Intelligence as a first criterion of justice. Intelligence and ambition in an arena of maximal competition is a good condition to hone any process - in this case, the creative defense of the individual versus the state. The state must be forced to refine its own laws to such a point that people naturally take it into their own hands and with cause and with the desired restoration of power-value relations as a result.
The final cause of the law is the optimal condition for a set of human entities to produce culture, and to restrict the civilizing process.
I appreciate your honesty, but I would appreciate it more if you were fully honest and dropped the word “culture” in favor of “tribe”, so the dichotomy would no longer be culture/civilization (Spengler, or whoever came up with it, be damned) but tribe/civilization, at which point your genetic inferiority would be revealed for all to see.
The reason you despise civilizations is not because civilizations are inherently bad, but because you are unfit for them. You are unfit for them because you’re a Jew who is dominated by tribal instincts. That’s all there is to it. Everything else is a RATIONALIZATION on your part which is a NECESSARY COMPONENT OF ALL TRIBALISM since all tribalism is based on the unconditional belief that one’s tribe is the best tribe.
Contrary to what barbarians such as Unabomber claim, our modern societies are NOT civilized, let alone OVER-civilized, since the prefix OVER- implies that our societies have reached a high level of civilization, which they did not, but PSEUDO-civilized, or RITUAL-civilized, or quite simply JUDEO-civilized, since it is the habit of the Jew to ritualize and mechanize behavior, and so the only way to interpret those who claim that modern societies are civilized is as people who are so uncivilized that a savagery that goes under the name of modern “civilization” looks like a civilization from their perspective.
Well, what I got from this discussion is one of my old philosophies, the mix of parts, it has always been in my head but never got around to say it.
The absolute truth is a rare entity. Truths are not absolute truths, but a glob of components.
Women are dumb, is true, but women are mix of smart and dumb.
Politicians are dumb, is true, but politicians are mix of dumb and occasional good management.
Jews have desires for evil barbarian tribal savagery (circumcision) but also have civilized qualities.
Civilization has savage compoents, it is both over and under civilized, as well as savage in some ways, and not savage in some ways.
The absolute truth is a rare entity.
We argue when both parties are often right in one way or another.
Your naivety and lack of knowledge concerning current events is astounding. Keep believing all of that however as it will make it all the more fun once the bewilderment of you and people like you starts to really kick in.
When it happens I want you to remember your prior conversations with me about all the terrible stuff never going to happen. Please do that for me. In the future I want to cherish ironies like that.
Yet the origins of tribalism historically is cult-ural.
Politics is just a bunch of dumb sportmanship really. It’s no different from like football as a spectator sport.
Everybody very stupidly goes around rooting for their team. Same idiocy basically.
Like conventional sports politics are also rigged…
My diagnosis is that cba is secretly obssessed with the joker character, perhaps romantically infatuated, that is why he cannot help but harass over it. Most people, would not give a shit one way or the other, but rather, focus on the topic.
Back when I was molested, I could not ever get over it, I kept focusing on it, the madder I got the more obsessed I became, eventually I fell in love with my molester. Cba seems to exhibit a similar psychology.
Him like many others don’t like my line of thinking or beliefs. For them my beliefs are uncomprehensible and rather enter a formal debate with me they instead attack my individual personal character with ad hominems ad nauseum. Nothing new for me. The way I look at it, if I am not pissing somebody off daily I am not doing philosophy correctly. I am so use to it by now that it doesn’t bother me anymore.
Ha no. Crusade? No. You’re taking this way more seriously than I am. I’m just procrastinating. I’ll probably be leaving in a few days.
I take the world seriously / can’t see how ridiculous the world is, because I think you’re trite and juvenile? I said one thing has an annoying characteristic(you) and you interpret that to mean I approach everything the same way. Do you need me to explain how false generalizations work? On top of that your pseudo apathy or whatever you think you have going on is contradicted by how obsessed you are with defending your forum character. There’s no point to being stupidly ridiculous when you get sad and whine when someone says you’re being stupidly ridiculous.
I’m sure you could find many flaws in my philosophy.
You’re leaving the forum so soon? Oh no! What will I do in your absence? I think that I might cry as I enjoy your company so very much. Can we at least exchange phone numbers so we can keep in touch with one another?
I guess that I’ll just have to pull myself together that you’ll be leaving us soon… 