Well, I thought Hobbes and I were being civil in our agreement to disagree. He is wrong and I am right, though I am pretty sure he stubbornly sees it the other way around. And hey, the name calling was civilized! He just can’t grasp love in its nature creates decadence and is decadent when you indulge in it at points. Oh heck, love is a luxury for the soul.
Gee I thought Kris and I were being civil.
Her acerbic comments point to her being wrong, whilst I am right on this matter.
She has lost the sene that her life is a natural one, that love is the most natural of emotions and despite the fact that her whole life she has never lived without love, she pretends that it is not needed by her. How would she know? None can tell.
But she prefers to denigrate love as decadence, which is really sad.
There is a tendency amongst the Christian community to eschew such feelings and to blame all ills on their acquisition of pleasure.
Such ideology is destructive as we have seen on numerous occasions.
Aahh see you do presume. I am without religion or god. Nor do I follow common Atheism. . I read, listen, observe, dissect and above all learn. Education is my primary entertainment. Its not your fault that you can’t see past your hereditary lessons.
I did not say you were a Christian or a Theist.
But we are all brought up in a Christian culture, like it or not.
“Common atheism” (whatever that is), is not a thing anyone can “follow”. Atheism is at root the absence of a belief in god, for me, it does not involve me in any belief, nor has it a direction, creed, or dogma to follow.
I dunno Smears is fairly on it with Atheist dogma on his thread. What we are is not what others are. Belief can be traumatic. ,… Kinda like your decadence beliefs…
Tsk, tsk. In context it makes no sense to take what you wrote
as not applying to her more than, say, you, given that you are now part of that we.
Much as I disagree with her about mother dogs merely having hormones and so on, you might as well stand for the, in this case, mistaken assumption your obviously made.
Has the discussion become more decadent or less?
It’s not shallower, but it is off topic. It is focused on personalities, at least more than the OP. That could be decadent, I suppose, if it becomes like gossip, but this isn’t gossip.
I suggest the fight go to the rant house where the bottom of it can be gotten at.
Decadence should not be profound, so getting down to the profound differences, will avoid it.
Getting down to profound differences can be avoided Moreno, by changing the terminology from atheist to agnostic. Knowledge and belief are so irreducible, as to convey a consfusion which need not be there.
I thinkI know what you mean, but I am not sure.
I meant that on some level they probably had a Deep disagreement. Working that out, or at least getting it out on the table -in a way likely more appropriate to the rant house - might actually be useful, not decadent and profound. Even if they never agree.
I mean, I was playing. but I was playing with ideas around decadence in relation to a Clash that involves ideas about the other person as a person and not just ideas about their ideas.
Quite interessting Nietzsche’s note about Beethoven’s music … and him “not being healthy enough for it”.
Custom (Sittlichkeit) is health …
And educated people usually lose the customs first… in all cultures … sexual revolution is an animalistic student revolution.
In Germany for example, truthfulness, and some other virtues were customs …
And there is no art about such noble virtues. Aristocracy means that beauty and wisdom rule. Who sings about them out of the Christian framework?
Ahh, but, I am correct. When an infant is birthed it gives off an aroma from a gland/s in first hours after birth. It attracts the mother to it. If infants are removed before bonding occurs and brought back after the hormone is gone( a day or two) , the mother will most likely reject it. Rarely is there a female that has a strong maternal instinct that allows her to accept any infant. These females have such a strong instinct that they can adopt infants from other species.
This is why it is recommended that mothers who wish to put their babies up for adoption must hold the infant and not sign any papers for 48 hrs after birth.
Emotional bonds are rarely immediate they are an after affect from caring for the needs of the bonded infant. The infant knows its mother by hormones and aroma. It has no initial feelings just survival needs to be met by its mother. Mothers are tools for survival. All following emotions are luxuries.
Then you lack the imagination required to see historical and ideological change in the longue durée, and have missed the point.
Little else that followed in your post, thus, seemed worth commenting on.
I don’t have any decadence beliefs.
Decadence is a matter of perspective, assuming a falsely static position of moral normatively. Moral positions are always subject to change, revision, and evolution. It’s a common enough tendency for the present to see the past as a golden age and the future and morally bankrupt.
The world is going to pot - the world has always been seen as going to pot.
When I was a tee, David Bowie appeared on TV in a dress, wearing make-up, to the moral indignation of the establishment and the older members of society.
Seen as ‘decadent’, Bowie and others initiated a position of acceptability for gender choice, homosexuality and self expression.
Today we have 'gay marriage" civil partnerships. And consenting sex between same sex partners, once illegal, is now part of everyday life.
Many would see this as decadent. I see it as progress in the evolution of the self and the expression of the individual.
Yea I recall that about Bowie, he and others did create a positive change, it helped that he is extremely talented.
You seem take decadence one way, that it is a bad thing. I do not see decadence as a bad thing. Fire can harm and it can help. Poison is deadly yet it can help. Love is good but, it causes harm.
When indulged to extremes it is harmful.
Decadence is as you say but, too often I see it used as negative.
Then you agree its all about perception.
Most people thought Bowie decadent. I think not.
Definition suggests: Noun
Moral or cultural decline, esp. after a peak of achievement.
Behavior reflecting such a decline.
I disagree entirely that you see Bowie as a cultural decline. Neither do I consider the narrowly defined hetero-sexualism that he replaced as a “peak of achievement”.
You think he’s decadent, but think that is good.
I don’t think there is anywhere to take this, as you seem more inclined to disagree with me for the sake of it.
I don’t Think genius and decadence really can fit together. Bowie had gads of irony, a very unique powerful voice, many great and almost Always unique songs. A decadent person might have liked or even imitated Bowie, but he was not decadent, at least not as an artist.
The point I was making is that many considered the growth of the gay movement, gender bending, men wearing dress and make-up as decadent.
And I’m sure many in the world would still think so. Decadence is relative.
I fail to see why you would think imitating Bowie is decadent.
If you like Bowie, you should see these guys.
They are abso-fucking-lutely fantastic.
I said a person imitating Bowie MIGHT be decadent. The chances go up when you imitate the specific, rather than imitating the act of creatively doing whatever it is. So 1) please note I said MIGHT, then 2) I Think a lot of habitual fashion - take fashion in a very broad sense, not just clothes and make-up - is decadent. It is copying form as a replacement of being and doing in the World. It’s shallow and often a part of fascism - against using this latter term broadly, say the way Deleuze might have used the term. Empty, but expensive. Dominating but adding nothing. copying as if this was an act of creativity.
I am not big on the idea of decadent times. I Think each time period has elements of both. So the same thing - a Bowie outfit on a person - can be an act of creativty (on his part) and decadent when some other people do it. If someone opens a door it makes sense that other people will walk through also. So it need not be decadent. It depends.
No problem.
But if you are in the UK, you ought to see these guys.
Bowie wanted decadence as part of the art. He and others flipped decadent perception on its ear as many artists have done throughout the ages. No I am not disagreeing to disagree. I do see we are on different perceptions and understandings. I deal alot with animals and studies of animals over the past 5 years. Before that law, anthropology and sociology. Animal studies have always been a part of my studies. We must know what we are before we know who we are. I have a job now that requires me to know animals and their problems and how they act and react. Mostly it is just flat out curiousity. I enjoy learning and learning does not always follow the norm.
I want to see some examples of a moral music, with virtues (or a lack of virtue).