Satyr's fatal flaw...

Yeah but it’s too often treated like a religion. And alot of it is more emotionally charged horseshit than philosophy per se.

I think you misunderstand, I don’t hate Satyr. I doubt you’ve read all 3000+ posts of his, but some he wrote long ago painted a much different picture of a young man who sympathized with the plight of women as he too hated it when guys would cum in his mouth. Apparently one such incident led to violence, Satyr admitted that he refused to swallow and the burly man held Satyr’s nose until Satyr relented.

After that, however, Satyr went into denial and started making silly arguments like, “the truth is a yo yo, and it rests in my coat pocket,” and the now classic, “I licked the inside of a toilet bowl and convinced myself that teleological positivism does not contradict itself.”

So, no. It isn’t that I hate the new, silly Satyr, its just I wish we had the old cocksucking Satyr back. Especially on Friday nights.

Satyr changes as do we all. I seem to recall a different GCT. Back in late 2005 and early 2006. What you were like before that I have no clue. Love to hate just means a favorite target for arguments in this context, with a few exceptions. I do believe the man manages to get some frothing at the bit just like you do. :laughing: :laughing: I have read some posts directed at you that, made me laugh out loud. They were so venomous… :laughing: some folks really have no humor.

Children are taught to believe that life is not about personal gain.

Adolescents believe that the above is horseshit and that they should strive for their own gain.

Adults tend to oscillate back toward the belief of children, given their observations of both.

However, some adults oscillate back and forth between the two, somehow thinking they are living poetically by being “dynamic” and shocking because they are spitting in the face of what everyone believes.

Don’t let these people amuse you. They are a waste of your time and will try to drag you down into their “philosophy” while you should be finishing your paper about real philosophy and attaining your real philosophy degree.

Satyr failed to permanently enchant me. Did he fail because he is not the true alpha male, or because his ideas were wrong and I realized it? Either way, I broke free of it. I encourage the rest of you to do the same. He will evaporate without his audience.

Sorry Ade i do not believe philosophy is doom and gloom. The world is a bright wonderful place filled with many perspectives. I prefer to have as much fun in my life as possible even when learning about the mind. Life is harsh enough with out forcing more seriousness into it. We are taught that maturity is nothing but hard work and seriousness. That is a prime reason so many people have their heads buried in the sand or up their rears. It gets depressing after awhile, better to ignore it and hide then face life, is the majority of attitudes. I prefer to see life , find the good in the bad and try to find something to laugh at as much as possible even if I feel pain. Life is wonderful even if it is shitty. Beautiful flowers bloom from piles of shit. Most recent for me, my mother’s death, with the pain of that I got to know my little sister and become good friends with my stepfather. I had not seen them or my mother in over 20 years. So through a series of bad and pain, I recieved good. I have fun with my newly refound family. If I had only dealt with doom and gloom philosophy i would have missed seeing the glorious flowers in the pile of shit. I would have tears in my heart rather than laughter in my heart. These gentlemen amuse me but, I learn from their perspectives and wisdoms. It is far better for me than just take it all seriously. Fun for adults is precious and rare enough without shunning it.

I agree with you.

What I disagree with is when a person claims to have “figured out” why people behave the way they do using a paradigm that is identical to Kierkegaard’s Aesthetic man in the Seducer’s Diary and proceeds to call it something original.

Satyr’s ideas are an identical rehash of Thrasymacean ethics, which are found in Book I of Plato’s Republic. His religion is nothing new or exciting. The reason people find so much excitement in the argument is because it was exciting to argue “justice as the advantage of the stronger” versus “justice as an end in itself” back then, and it still is now. Satyr does not come out and directly say that “justice is the advantage of the stronger,” but his ideas on how women should be “used” indicates that man ought to convolute justice to his own end. In essence, he would do BETTER to be sneaky and bypass justice to get what he wants, because the ideas found in justice are man-made and are therefore false.

Whenever anybody creates a writing that directly or indirectly assaults justice, those who believe that justice is real will rise up and argue against the writer. The writer gains an extremely unfair advantage in this, as he waits for the first attack to come to him so he can reply, “Hah! You are only arguing against me because you KNOW that justice is not real and you are afraid of these ideas becoming popular! This is because you are weak and you would be the first to die without your precious idea of justice!” or something to that extent.

The debate of Socrates versus Thrasymacus rages on today, but we should not let this charlatan of a philosopher feel that anything he has written is somehow a testament to his keen observational skills. He is merely taking events that everyone sees and is assuming that human justice is a lie. With justice fully discounted (and without any debate on the matter) his “keenness” on seeing how people would act in a world without justice (or false justice) becomes entirely predictable.

I must say you play the part of the Satyr well, using any sort of trickery to mask the true nature of the debate (obviously so you can arouse all of the female philosophers on this message board you will meet very soon). Bravo.

I have to ask, do you ever read anything?

Naw man, Sat has legit, original material coming out his ears whether he’s inspired by particular writers or not.
And arousing women? Kris? Hahaha. Kris is a female.

Now don’t pick on Satyrs and my relationship it works. Uuummm sort of ,if I have not pissed him off :laughing: Satyr is only arousing in the sense that he challenges. That is worth more than diamonds in my poor female perspective. I mean human perspective. No Saytr I do not like you,do not get all up in arms, you are a thorn. Crap, its hard to keep this gender bashing straight. :laughing:

Show me one idea in there that is “original” and I will show you a masked topic that is actually resonant with some major philosophical archetype that has been a hot button since time immemorial.

The female has sexual selection?

A man can’t do everything he wants to do all the time because he won’t be socially accepted?

This is original? Please.

I try to convince myself that there is nothing to learn from this place, but I keep coming back. God I’m such a moron. I encountered possibly the worst human being of all time and feel compelled to argue against his trite “morals are false” style philosophy. Why am I trying to help this asshole?

The intolerant judgementalism that you display here is well played, a brilliant ray of darkness…
Such an endearing quality, but certainly far from a characteristic of an ‘empathic’ person.
(And ‘ugly’, is in the eye of the beholder!)

That’s because you have been imbued with the moralistic definition of empathy.

To be able to think like the other does not necessarily result in you liking them or pitying them or being positively inclined towards them.
Sometimes when you can empathize you hate what you see because you know it so well.

Does not a hunter put himself, imagine himself, in the head of another species so as to track it down and kill it?
Then, as in some primitive cultures, he might thank it for its sacrifice or honor it as a fellow living being, but he still eats it.

That in our modern times, as you so aptly display, empathy has been associated with compassion, is another example of how culture shapes understanding.


Also telling that you don’t really respond to what I say but you only make some statement about your own emotional reactions to my positions and you then go on to repeat the “subjectivism” angle of “it’s all in the eye of the beholder” bullshit.

I wonder why I haven’t been accused of being handsome as I have about being hateful towards women?
Why do you think?

Now, truly, you realize that beauty is not in the eye of the beholder and that the ancient Greeks with their art captured the geometry of beauty, of the human form, and that science has made some measurements.

Besides your ‘positive’, hopefulness and total disregard for nature’s indifference to individual suffering, you seem to be taken by the comforting idea that nothing matters really because it’s all subjective anyways.

To which reality still remains indifferent because no matter your subjective needs beauty no less than gravity remain independent from your willful redefinitions and anxiety filled re-evaluations.

But you can’t even see how you attempt to circumvent the natural order of things with your trite denials and culturally determined, feel-good mythologies.

Beauty is but a manifestation of symmetry, which is a display of order.
In a disordering universe, you can see why this would be attractive. It is power manifest.

But power is not permanent, is it?
It requires cosntant effort, but effort requires need to justify itself and so effort wanes and decadence ensues and the once powerful, due to their own power, nonetheless, are surpassed by the once not powerful.
And so goes the ebb and flow of life.

In this case ugliness, or a below average symmetry or ideal form, forces a challenge upon the individual, a do or die.
This, in turn, results in either death and/or a denial in reproduction, or it results in a more ordered, symmetrical mind, as a compensation, which in turn, and after generations, may result in its outer manifestation of beauty.
And so it repeats.

There is no such definition of empathy as far as I understand it. Perhaps you have never experienced it.

“Thinking” like someone is not empathy.
“Pity” is ego.

It is obvious to me that you have not experienced ‘empathy’. You describe another egoic experience. Ego is antithetical to empathy; inversely proportionate.

Empathy is not ‘imagination’, either.

Actually, in all times, empathy is, of course, associated with compassion. It becomes obvious that you know neither.

Couldn’t care less… I accused you of nothing (except, perhaps, this red-herring)

Absolute nonsense. What are you on about now, still on about your gay spartan warriors? You are so deep in the closet…
It’s history, suck it up!

[Remainder deleted as ‘projection’, nonsense, irrelevent and emo-babble]
Odd, I feel like I need a shower after talking to you…
Without ever seeing you, I already know that you are an ‘ugly’ person.

nameless out

Yes, that must be it.

I would go as far as say I have not experienced the depths of your emotional needs or cowardly hopes and expectations.

Follow the link I posted before you open your mouth. You look silly.

What a perfect example of how, through cultural education, indoctrination, one concept becomes linked with another and so confused by this linkage.

Follow the link I sent.

Everything stems from self the sense of self, the ego.
The idea of selflessness is usually associated with the need to purify an action or thought from its motives, by distancing it from the source, or it describes an action or thought that has no immediate benefits but only indirect ones, and so one can make it into a virtue, in accordance to cultural myths and necessities, by denying that the actor at all from his actions.

That’s you’ve been trained to consider empathy as essentially leading to compassion is because you’ve been brought up in a system where the sense of self must be diminished so as to enable a more harmonious coexistence or an association of self with as greater self.

It must be something magical then.

Thanks for just denying.

Fascinating. You aren’t even aware of your own motives, are you?

I was making a general statement, by the way.

Are you a ‘phi…philo…philosopher’ or are you just needing to support the ideas the comfort you?

That’s it. You are onto somehting. Keep pretending you are thinking.

And yes it’s all about gay Spartan warriors.

Thanks for that modern adolescent stupidity trying to explain what you cannot.

And yes, I actually think I know who you are.
If ignored, you seem to fancy adopting different masks to get back into the light.
But your nature shines bright and true.

That density cannot be hidden.

That’s because you are a dirty little boy.
Too bad you can’t wash reality from you. You can blind yourself to it, though.
You’ve done a good job so far.

Lucky for you that you live in an age where stupidity is preferred and weakness is sheltered and defended agaisnt itself.

Obviously. Emotionally you ‘know’ this to be true.

I am as ugly as you wish me to be, my dear.

And over.

It’s too bad you don’t know what you are talking about or reality is so foreign and threatening to your emotional state of comforting, sheltered conformity.

Unfortunately how you feel about the world doesn’t matter.

Let me aid you:
My comments in blue.

From these two definitions one can see that one can associate one’s self with another, see one’s self reflected in another, and so know the other based no his knowledge and awareness of him self but compassion leads to the need to alleviate the suffering felt by another while empathy does not necessarily mean the other feels suffering or that one wants to alleviate it.
I, can empathize with a serial killer or Hitler or a slug just going along.
I can empathize with my prey, so as to better hunt it by knowing it.

^^^ DO you think anyone actually reads this emotional sick ranting that you puke here? Certainly not me! Feel free to vent your bile again, theres plenty of room, you’ll even hear the echos of your lone voice if you shut your mouth long enough…
Have a nice day.

Ah, perfect. =D>

No response.
Nothing more than an emotional outbreak of contempt.

I guess you are right, once again, my dear.
How often have you been right?

Nobody reads my “emotional sick” (nice grammar) ranting and I am not unique.
You got me.

You see so clearly, once more.

But if it is true, as I’m sure it is because you said so, this still doesn’t change reality, now does it?

I am but the messenger and you need not read my messages, as you obviously do not.

Live in ignorance, as all sheeple do.
And then live in the shame of being a hypocrite that has totally and completely bought into his own bullshit.

Satyr you’re simply taking all of man’s darkest thoughts that he keeps shrouded (for reasons of practicality), and are exhibiting them as often and as eloquently as possible.

On an internet message board.

I am so glad that you have the generosity (despite your dark and evil nature) to stop your busy day of eating babies and pillaging the innocent to remind us that we would be happier if we were more like you.

The man who is happy does not have to insist upon his happiness. Happiness is an activity of the soul [mind, maybe?] that is in accordance with virtue. Virtue, in the Aristotelian sense, is action that occupies the mean between two extremes (for example, courage is the mean between cowardice and recklessness). Like it or not, believe it or not, temperate and level headed individuals who are ethical for its own sake will always be happier than those who put on the “charade” of virtue while everyone is looking so that they can sneak in the shadows later. A virtuous man (in the Aristotelian sense) is less likely to be consumed by passion than the one who views his ethical obligations as a means to an end; it would be impossible for the latter to be moderate or even clever, for that matter. How could a person who lacks cleverness and moderation be happy? His mind would be utter chaos, and he would have little control over himself.

You cannot be a man who is temperate and “evil.” You cannot “put on the disguise of ethics” for the sake of appearing normal and then run out and have sex with sheep in the middle of the night. Your intemperance will consume you. The unethical man who appears to be ethical for the sake of getting what he wants (we will call him Satyr’s Champion) cannot be a happy person because his conflict between word and deed is fueled by passion. He cannot put on this mask of reason and intellectual superiority only to “reward” himself with the pursuit of things that are trite and meaningless. This is anything BUT freedom.

Satyr, your definition of what man is, or rather should be, is a conglomeration of arbitrarily selected animal behaviors that you feel should apply to the human telos for one reason or another.

You explained man’s tendency to form alliances with one another based on the rules of previously existing animals. When man changed/evolved, the rules changed with him. He did not “give up” his individuality to become part of a social alliance, because the social alliance is a prerequisite of individualism. It is in this way that individuality is bound to certain modes of conduct; a man who behaves in a temperate and moderate manner will be more “free in the mind” to contemplate the self.

Even from the standpoint of sheer practicality and necessity, it is evident that the morals of man are not “man-made” but are a prerequisite for thinking beings who can use language.

You seriously need to go back and read the classics. I’m done taking you to school.

Here lies the reality of it Ade. Men can’t give women any rights. Women must expect them, take them and earn them or they have nothing. We cannot say give us rights, then we are owned. A woman is still a woman no matter what career she chooses. She is human and a woman. If she submits to domination then is she still human? or just a woman? If a man cannot handle a woman that has more qualifications then him, then he is just a man and of little importance. You can brow beat submission into a person but they will not understand. Do you want men to give you rights or do you expect them and reealize you already have them? women that submit must decide for themselves a group of women such as those in the middle east must stand together first before outside people cann assist them. If they do not then we will see any help given to them become wasted over all. One or two may shine through but the women will fall back to brainwashed tradition of submission. No one can give you your humanity or human rights. You must take them expect them and earn them.

Women are taught to depend upon the male for food, hearth and protection… when we can do all of those things for ourselves. So is it the male that causes the issue or are we telling the male one thing and showing him another? Until we can prove to ourselves and our daughters that we do not need the male for those specific things we will face submission. When we realize that we need males for a partner not a protector and males finally get that message clearly, life won’t present this gender issue. We can sit on this forum day and night presenting our views, but it is the women in the man’s life that must change his view, we cannot. If they accept his view then we cannot convince him otherwise.

I argue because it is fun and a learning experience, to see another view gives me a piece to the puzzles of life. We cannot expect change here, it might happen but, to count on it would be harmful to ourselves.

Just keeping a list of everything that’s wrong with me…according to most of the members on ILP.

Okay then:

I am bitter
(According to the little girl Wonderer)

I hate women
(According to Ingenium)

I’m Canadian and glad eh.
(According to Americans)

I resent life
(According to the little girl Wonderer)

I resent death
(According to the little girl Wonderer)

I masturbate…a lot
(According to my doctor)

I live in a my mother’s basement where I store my collection of comic books and matchbox cars
(Well, this could be taken as a virtue in some circles)

My penis is small
(According to every woman that has ever seen me naked - all 2 of them…mother and another one…oh yeah, my ex-wife that bitch!!!)

My penis doesn’t work - I’m impotent
(According to the little girl Wonderer and my ex-wife…that bitch!!!)

I can’t cope with life
(According to the little girl Wonderer and my psychologists)

I am evil
(According to the little girl Ade and the Bible)

I am ill
(According to the little girl Ade and my psychologist and that old friend of mine psyche)

I am ugly
(According to the little girl nameless and everyone that has ever seen me)

I am a loser
(According to Satyr)

I have no job
(According to the government)

I’ve never had sex
(According to the facts)

I’ve got hemorrhoids
(According to my ass)

My left foot is missing
(According to my right foot)

I am crippled
(According to my ex-gym teacher)

I hate God
(According to Ned Flanders?)

I stutter
(According to Satyr)

I am not funny and I have a stunted sense of humor
(According to Tabula Rasa)

You forgot one.

You jazzercize.
You wear tights when you do it.
And you do it to Richard Simmons tapes.

What’s wrooong with that?