Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Try and disprove this philosophy of mine

PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

"All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.

Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:17:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

"All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

There is nothing more to it, ultimately. Welcome to Nihilism.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:37:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@OP: It's obvious you aren't a philosopher, a scientist, or an artist. You are probably a disillusioned videogamer.

I'm being a bit harsh here, but only someone who never spent significant time doing something of value could be so dismissive of the entirety of human activity. Everything takes time to do right.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 1:49:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 1:37:07 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
@OP: It's obvious you aren't a philosopher, a scientist, or an artist. You are probably a disillusioned videogamer.

I'm being a bit harsh here, but only someone who never spent significant time doing something of value could be so dismissive of the entirety of human activity. Everything takes time to do right.

Thank you for the summary of the tl;dr post. If it's nihilism, I can honestly say "been there, done that" - I think it's a common starting point. I certainly started there.
sadolite
Posts: 8,833
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 3:19:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

"All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

It sounds like you have never created something from nothing with your own hands have you. Your outlook on life seems purely from an acidemic bubble.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 7:18:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This should be fun. I'm only going to focus on one aspect because I'm lazy.

Let's keep this in mind:

At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle.


Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science,...

...yeaahhhh...

First, it is incredibly controversial as to whether all sciences are reducible to physics. In fact, many scientists (especially in biology, chemistry, and psychology) who are out and out non-reductivists wrt to reducing those fields of study to physics.

For example, check out philosophy of chemistry:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

Philosophy of biology:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

And others:

http://plato.stanford.edu...

So, I guess if those fields of study are not reducible to physics they amount to stamp collecting? It'd be great to find out that all the "knowledge" we gain from those fields amounts to nothing more than a hobby and is useless and arbitrary.

Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y.

Here's what Steven Weinberg (http://en.wikipedia.org...) says:

"It is when we study truly fundamental problems that we expect to find beautiful answers. We believe that, if we ask why the world is the way it is and then ask why that answer is the way it is, at the end of this chain of explanations we shall find a few
simple principles of compelling beauty. We think this in part because our historical
experience teaches us that as we look beneath the surface of things, we find more and
more beauty. Plato and the neo-Platonists taught that the beauty we see in nature is
a reflection of the beauty of the ultimate, the nous. For us, too, the beauty of present
theories is an anticipation, a premonition, of the beauty of the final theory. And, in
any case, we would not accept any theory as final unless it was beautiful. (Weinberg
1993: 165)"

"The beauty of string theory

NOVA: String theory makes some pretty bizarre predictions. How is it regarded by the general physics community?

Weinberg: I don't think anyone ever thought of string theory as a crackpot theory. The people who were working on it were working in the recognized traditions of elementary particle physics or fundamental theoretical physics. Even the ideas that seemed strangest, like the idea that there were extra dimensions, had a long history in physics. Einstein had flirted with the idea of a fifth dimension as a way of unifying electromagnetism with gravity.

But there has been a division among physicists, not so much as to whether or not string theory will ultimately be proved to be right or not, but as to whether it's worth working on something that's so far removed from experimental reality. I would say I'm awfully glad that not every theoretical physicist is working on string theory, and I'm awfully glad that some of them are.

NOVA: If string theory doesn't have testable predictions, is it science or is it philosophy?

Weinberg: Sometimes people say that string theory, because it's unrelated to any experiment, is no longer science, it's just a kind of a mysticism. I don't think that's right at all. I think that the string theorists are trying to accomplish something that will be recognized if it succeeds in unifying all the forces, but it will be experimentally verified as well. It won't be experimentally verified by finding the strings themselves—by seeing the one-dimensional little rips in space that we call strings—but it will be experimentally verified if it explains the things that are still mysterious about the physics we know about. It is just a part of ordinary science. Unfortunately, it's further removed from observation than most parts of science but not hopelessly removed from it.

NOVA: Do you think that string theory could turn out to be just plain wrong?

Weinberg: I don't think it's ever happened that a theory that has the kind of mathematical appeal that string theory has has turned out to be entirely wrong. There have been theories that turned out to be right in a different context than the context for which they were invented. But I would find it hard to believe that that much elegance and mathematical beauty would simply be wasted. And in any case I don't see any alternative to string theory. I don't see any other way of bringing gravity into the same general theoretical framework as all the other forces of nature. Yes, it could be entirely wrong. I don't think it's likely at all. I think it's best to assume it's not and take it very seriously and work on it.

NOVA: What is beauty to a theoretical physicist?

Weinberg: It may seem wacky that a physicist looking at a theory says, "That's a beautiful theory," and therefore takes it seriously as a possible theory of nature. What does beauty have to do with it? I like to make an analogy with a horse breeder who looks at a horse and says, "That's a beautiful horse." While he or she may be expressing a purely aesthetic emotion, I think there's more to it than that. The horse breeder has seen lots of horses and from experience with horses knows that that's the kind of horse that wins races.

"The kind of beauty that we search for in physics is a large part of what attracts people to string theory."

So it's an aesthetic sense that's been beaten into us by centuries of interaction with nature. We've learned that certain kinds of theories—the kind that win races—actually succeed in accounting for natural phenomena. The kind of beauty we look for is a kind of rigidity, a sense that the theory is the way it is because if you change anything in it, it would make no sense.

String theories in particular have gotten much more rigid as time has passed, which is good. You don't want a theory that accounts for any conceivable set of data; you want a theory that predicts that the data must be just so, because then you will have explained why the world is the way it is. That's a kind of beauty that you also see in works of art, perhaps in a sonata of Chopin, for example. You have the sense that a note has been struck wrong even if you've never heard the piece before. The kind of beauty that we search for in physics really does work as a guide, and it is a large part of what attracts people to string theory. And I'm betting that they're right."

http://www.pbs.org...

Since mathematics wholly undergirds physics and you regard finding mathematics beautiful "baggage-y" and physicists use aesthetic qualities as a guide to formulating theories what does that leave physics' status as? Baggage-y arbitrary stamp collecting?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2011 8:30:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:

"All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." - George Orwell.


If you were a writer, you'd know that Orwell was talking about the wonderment and unadulterated joy that comes from creation.
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 7:27:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
First, it is incredibly controversial as to whether all sciences are reducible to physics. In fact, many scientists (especially in biology, chemistry, and psychology) who are out and out non-reductivists wrt to reducing those fields of study to physics.

I don't claim all of science is reducible, but I do claim that the work involved in the stamp collecting sciences is pretty much boring gruntwork.

"It is when we study truly fundamental problems that we expect to find beautiful answers. We believe that, if we ask why the world is the way it is and then ask why that answer is the way it is, at the end of this chain of explanations we shall find a few simple principles of compelling beauty.

We think this in part because our historical experience teaches us that as we look beneath the surface of things, we find more and more beauty. Plato and the neo-Platonists taught that the beauty we see in nature is a reflection of the beauty of the ultimate, the nous. For us, too, the beauty of present theories is an anticipation, a premonition, of the beauty of the final theory. And, in any case, we would not accept any theory as final unless it was beautiful.


Yeah ok so we got this random "nous" thing which is basically another religious invention of the human mind, with all the baggage-y connotations of that. And we somehow "find" (honestly, what the ****?) beauty underneath things, as if it was a physical thing to discover, just like gold under rocks. And at the end, more pretentious, eschathology-esque talk of the final theory which I get an "salvation" vibe from (I think following such a concept in general implies baggage-y weakness on the part of the follower) far, far off from today anyway.

The horse breeder has seen lots of horses and from experience with horses knows that that's the kind of horse that wins races.

So it's an aesthetic sense that's been beaten into us by centuries of interaction with nature. We've learned that certain kinds of theories—the kind that win races—actually succeed in accounting for natural phenomena. The kind of beauty we look for is a kind of rigidity, a sense that the theory is the way it is because if you change anything in it, it would make no sense.


So again more of the premonition baggage. So what if the horse can win a race? That's only interesting if you're actually there, feeling and sensing the action as it happens. Otherwise it's just an illusion. And I wouldn't really call a horserace intense anyway, so... And accounting for natural phenomena, well, that's overly general, and we still haven't seen why caring for it is non-arbitrary.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/29/2011 6:30:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/29/2011 7:27:04 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
First, it is incredibly controversial as to whether all sciences are reducible to physics. In fact, many scientists (especially in biology, chemistry, and psychology) who are out and out non-reductivists wrt to reducing those fields of study to physics.

I don't claim all of science is reducible, but I do claim that the work involved in the stamp collecting sciences is pretty much boring gruntwork.


You're really going to bite the bullet and say (for instance) biology amounts to stamp collecting?


"It is when we study truly fundamental problems that we expect to find beautiful answers. We believe that, if we ask why the world is the way it is and then ask why that answer is the way it is, at the end of this chain of explanations we shall find a few simple principles of compelling beauty.

We think this in part because our historical experience teaches us that as we look beneath the surface of things, we find more and more beauty. Plato and the neo-Platonists taught that the beauty we see in nature is a reflection of the beauty of the ultimate, the nous. For us, too, the beauty of present theories is an anticipation, a premonition, of the beauty of the final theory. And, in any case, we would not accept any theory as final unless it was beautiful.


Yeah ok so we got this random "nous" thing which is basically another religious invention of the human mind, with all the baggage-y connotations of that. And we somehow "find" (honestly, what the ****?) beauty underneath things, as if it was a physical thing to discover, just like gold under rocks. And at the end, more pretentious, eschathology-esque talk of the final theory which I get an "salvation" vibe from (I think following such a concept in general implies baggage-y weakness on the part of the follower) far, far off from today anyway.


The horse breeder has seen lots of horses and from experience with horses knows that that's the kind of horse that wins races.

So it's an aesthetic sense that's been beaten into us by centuries of interaction with nature. We've learned that certain kinds of theories—the kind that win races—actually succeed in accounting for natural phenomena. The kind of beauty we look for is a kind of rigidity, a sense that the theory is the way it is because if you change anything in it, it would make no sense.


So again more of the premonition baggage. So what if the horse can win a race? That's only interesting if you're actually there, feeling and sensing the action as it happens. Otherwise it's just an illusion. And I wouldn't really call a horserace intense anyway, so... And accounting for natural phenomena, well, that's overly general, and we still haven't seen why caring for it is non-arbitrary.

All of this leaves my question unanswered. If mathematics and physical theories involving mathematics heavily involve aesthetics in the choosing of theories and solving of problems and you thinks aesthetics is "baggage-y" then what about the status of physics? Is that "baggage-y" as well?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2011 3:48:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
You're really going to bite the bullet and say (for instance) biology amounts to stamp collecting?


Yeah, pretty much. In biology in particular tons of cheap (compared to the length of their education) workers (with different name like research professor, postdoc, assistant prof, etc) are hired to do the tons and tons of gruntwork needed to make real progress in biology.

All of this leaves my question unanswered. If mathematics and physical theories involving mathematics heavily involve aesthetics in the choosing of theories and solving of problems and you thinks aesthetics is "baggage-y" then what about the status of physics? Is that "baggage-y" as well?

Having an interest in physics is baggage and doing the work is either practical gruntwork or head-in-the-clouds thinking. So the people doing that work are driven by some strong internal feeling they cling to (baggage).
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 12:39:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@OP

Yes, I feel like all of what you said here is true... sometimes.

Then I smoke pot or otherwise cheer myself up. If I didn't, and I got very caught up in this type of thinking, I would kill myself.
The world we live in is absurd and pointless with all paths leading to nothingness. We make the significance of things, we care about the significance of things- you just have to be content that that is good enough.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 1:04:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

I completely disagree with this.

Science and mathematics are kind of mind-blowing.
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 2:38:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Then I smoke pot or otherwise cheer myself up. If I didn't, and I got very caught up in this type of thinking, I would kill myself.

Drugs and such seems a pretty good way to have strong experience. Still though, where does your emotionality and enthusiasm come from, and how does it keep going? Is it pure, metabolized energy which keeps you going?

Science and mathematics are kind of mind-blowing.

Mind going a bit indepth? What exactly you find fascinating, and more importantly why and how often?
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 3:04:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:38:18 PM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
Then I smoke pot or otherwise cheer myself up. If I didn't, and I got very caught up in this type of thinking, I would kill myself.

Drugs and such seems a pretty good way to have strong experience. Still though, where does your emotionality and enthusiasm come from, and how does it keep going? Is it pure, metabolized energy which keeps you going?

Hahaha! That is a funny question to be asked. You may as well ask me why I stop myself from being depressed. I use drugs to have a strong experience sometimes (alcohol every now and then and hallucinogens a few times a year). But when I say I smoke pot to cheer myself up, I mean I do it to lessen my anxiety about the fact that nothing matters. Also, when I smoke pot, it makes me give a sh!t about things. I couldn't tell you how or why. It just makes things more interesting.

On normal days, at normal times, when I can't smoke-Honestly, my enthusiasm comes because I force it to come. If I didn't force it, it wouldn't. I would just sit in my bed all day thinking about how all my actions are futile. This is probably just the life of a person with clinical depression. But that is it nonetheless. I give myself logical arguments to do things sometimes. Sometimes, I make pro's and con's lists.

What makes me continue? The desire to not feel like sh!t. The desire to be happy. Happiness in the sense of eudaimonia- not the hedonistic happiness.
For example-
Why am I going to college? Why did I make an account on DDO?
Because I find that every time I learn something about the world, and integrate it into the knowledge I already have, I feel happier. The world is pointless, but it comforts me to know the mechanics of it. More specifically, it comforts me to know truth. In the face of absurdity, I can hold up the knowledge I have and say- well, at least this makes sense. Much like a Christian might hold up a cross to fend off satan.

Anyway, I hope that answers your question. Your specific criticisms of specific sciences and the like are something I don't have enough knowledge of to comment on.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2012 3:31:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 12/28/2011 7:11:31 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
My claim is simple: people enjoy many arbitrary activities due to their own subconscious baggage which we've aquired as a result of an overly unnatural (another side to this is the diabetes epidemic), unminimalistic lifestyle. And ultimately, everything is the same. It's the same core archetypes again and again and again, meaning only intensity is truly worth living for, unless one carries enough baggage as to make oneself neurotic. Then the most honest activity is one that causes both psychological and physiological intensity. It's the only way of maximalizing liveliness. Here's a few examples of how the baggage shows it self.

"All writers are vain, selfish and lazy, and at the very bottom of their motives lies a mystery. Writing a book is a long, exhausting struggle, like a long bout of some painful illness. One would never undertake such a thing if one were not driven by some demon whom one can neither resist nor understand." - George Orwell.

Wittgenstein said philosophy repels those who suspect it is a timewaste due to language confusion in it, thus reinforcing language confusion in it. Too many philosophers have been freaks, this makes it overly obvious how society's unminimalistic unnaturality has gotten to them SOMEHOW.

Non-physics scientists? "All science is either physics or stamp collecting." - Rutherford telling it like it is regarding the gruntwork that is science, and yet those in it work long hours. The abstract parts of science as bloated (i.e. few jobs) also in the west and they too attract freaks. Mathematicians actually think of numbers as beautiful; how baggage-y. Every snowflake is unique but in the end its just variations of the same old archetype anyway. Nothing new under the sun. Now if one really tries to understand a subject there may be new such archetypes to uncover, new paradigms so to say but if one has taken to a bit more meta-y perspective beforehand it quickly becomes obvious only so much is ever possible within every such paradigm so its not that exciting after all. Also, some "core archetypes" in the ways of thought will obviously resonate through different fields, turning every new realization one may come over boring.

Idealism, morality. "act so as to treat people always as ends in themselves, never as mere means." yeah who cares? Life goes on whether some philosopher sits around in his house. To care about the things Kant and others do is just an arbitrary use of one's time. They must carry much subconscious baggage to have such great passion.

Perfectionism, aestheticism in general. Why care if a cord is a little messy? Some people actually care about such bull. A painting too. It's just a painting. That's that. While research has been done into human appreciation of symmetry and such, it doesn't explain overly strong neatfreakery and how neatfreaks make a life out of aestheticism. If anything human appreciation of such should only only be a minor sidething to humanity. How can it not be their subconscious, unecessary baggage giving them an artificial enjoyment boost? I call this artifical cause I want to make the best choices as far as spending my time in life on things, and there's no time for the unecessary, the simply idiosyncratic, the boring, the random, the arbitrary.

The concept of keeping a diary. Who really cares about the past? It ain't coming back anyway. Better to be living a story than sitting around thinking about one, unless one has something yet learned for preparation for life.

Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept.


Humans evolved to DO after all, not sitting around (sedentary). Slack activities induce no extremity or intensity. Everything else is just unnatural. Or pershaps something has passed me by, not illuminated by my limited psyche. Now, try to counter my points; prove that there's something more to it, ultimately!

There is no answer to the question "Why should I care?".

In exactly the same way as there is no answer to the question "Why should I not care?"

For example, you have said "Just visiting places. A city or whatever is really just another variation of the same old, same old concept."

Well, even if it is the same old, why should that matter to you? If your question is "Why should I care about anything?", well, then, why do you care that it's the same old thing?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
StephyeeLove
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2012 8:17:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wow, what a topic.

Sometimes I think of how sick and pointless humanity and life is, but it isn't. A foreign country isnt the same as your hometown, a painting isn't just chemivals or mess on a canvass, and all sciences arent fundamentally physics or stamp collecting.

If you choose to believe so, it's merely human. To have differing viewpoints is only human.
I believe that words are not enough to express something because every experience is unique- this allows music and other arts to fill the void of a particular experience.

I believe that paris is nothing like my home town in any aspect, whether it be multiplied or minimized-paris is nothing like my small town. While the average american adolesent/young adult asks themselves "why do I live?", some unfortunate 5 year old in africa asks themselves "how do I live?".

Why live? Why care? I agree with the guy a few posts above mine who says something like its the same answer to "Why not care?". My answer is this- to achieve a mentality. To care is to find something to believe in, whether it me yourself, a child, or a religion. To find a purpose whether whether it be love, knowledge, or to define yourself. Evwn those who find no purpose to live once had one, otherwise they wouldnt kniw what it is like to NOT have a purpose. Perhaps naïvete is bliss bevause as children we know nothing of purpose or of death and essentially I believe that is what stars the philosophy.

Death.

Death is a time limit, a sadistic finish line of sorts. Its a point that exclaims "you will one day get here" and people (although not physically show it) mentally panic. They wonder "why do we live only to die?" And see the view as pointless. We live to live, not to die. Dying is the end of something once started- and must come. And I believe that once you accept that the end will come (how morbid!) you will achieve a sense of purpose, of something to live for. Dwelling on your purpose or-lack of one defines your life. Upon realization of this I believe thats when people begin to live and want to live forever through their actions.

This realization causes creation. Paintings, music, literature, the passion to advance in mathematics and sciences- these are all arts, humanity is an art. People strive to live and some to leave an imprint on the world, to live forever. Because once someone dies, they never truly do. Memories keep them alive. Somone at one point had to have known them. and scientists, painters, artists...they all live forever. And even everydsy citizens live forever.

My mini philosophy is that within our planet, there are a billion little worlds. Worlds that surround any individual and their daily routine meeting thw same people over again. Many people call this life, and living in this little world (in my thoughts) is all that matters, is all that it is to live.

Perhaps its a bit psychotic or melancholic, but that's what I believe. :)
Please excuse the typos, I have chubby fingers and an ity bity touch screen keyboard on my cell. Oh, and please excuse the irony C: this post is full of it.
Yes, "Love" is actually my middle name.
Today's problems won't matter tomorrow! :)
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/18/2012 11:56:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Well, even if it is the same old, why should that matter to you? If your question is "Why should I care about anything?", well, then, why do you care that it's the same old thing?

You're abstracting too much. Sensory experience is what life is about, not baggage-y words like "meaning". The senses provide true substance which can't be denied.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 2:04:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/12/2012 2:38:18 PM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:

Science and mathematics are kind of mind-blowing.

Mind going a bit indepth? What exactly you find fascinating, and more importantly why and how often?

Everything.

Reality in general from a scientific vantage is absolutely astounding.

For example -- I remember discussing in another thread, the actual nature of reflection. I think it was 000ike who asked a question about it, and I was ever-so-thrilled to discuss it. :3

Reflection is actually one of my favorite concepts. Most people believe that it's simply "light" somehow "bouncing" off of an object, right?

Well, what's really happening is something like this:

Let's say we're dealing with a mirror. Photons, or units of light, emit from a source and strike the surface of the glass. However, it's transparent, meaning that it's arrangement does not include a great deal of electrons, particularly those that are delocalized, or free to move about the field of energy and atoms that comprise an object. Moreover, although they're arranged in a rather rigid and relatively strong structure (crystalline), the glass is comprised of relatively few atoms. Therefore, it is a lot easier for photons to pass through the glass altogether without striking any other subatomic particles. A small percentage of them will, however, strike some atoms on the surface of the glass, and this is what we see as glare.

However, when the photons move past the glass and strike the silver lining on the back, it actually encounters a field very densely packed with atoms and electrons. Moreover, there's a large proportion of electrons that can be delocalized (this translates as "shiny" to the eye). Therefore, a very large proportion of the photons hitting the silver actually strike atoms.

When photons strike atoms, whether in glass or silver or any other material, it converts into something called a "circulon" and basically sticks there. The force of the photon striking the atom causes delocalized electrons to shoot from the atom into atoms behind it, which causes a chain effect so a wave of electrons travel all the way to the back of the object. However, this also causes the electrons to bounce back off the electrons they strike, so there's a simultaneous wave moving forward.

When electrons strike atoms in which a circulon has embed, that circulon will convert back into a photon and shoot from the atom at the speed of light.

However, that circulon may not necessarily have derived from this light emission; conversely, it may have been embed in that particular atom for eons.

A small amount of energy is lost during this transfer, as always, and this decay is released in the form of heat. This is why objects without many delocalized electrons (things that aren't shiny) will simply absorb the energy from the photons striking atoms and become significantly warmer.

So, you know, don't wear black in the summer, and reflective sun glasses really do shield the sun from your eyes.

That's not mundane at all. That's incredible.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 2:09:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Ooooo, here's another one:

Atoms can coalesce into complex elements required to support life, such as carbon, exclusively as a result of nuclear fusion compounded with the energy released during a supernova.

Therefore, that means two things:

Although not all (or even most) matter derives from stars, we and all life on this planet specifically, do. Moreover, it required that a star lived it's entire existence and died for our existence to be possible.

That's an incredible thought. You really think that's mundane??
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 12:43:09 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/19/2012 2:09:13 AM, Ren wrote:
Ooooo, here's another one:

Atoms can coalesce into complex elements required to support life, such as carbon, exclusively as a result of nuclear fusion compounded with the energy released during a supernova.

Therefore, that means two things:

Although not all (or even most) matter derives from stars, we and all life on this planet specifically, do. Moreover, it required that a star lived it's entire existence and died for our existence to be possible.

That's an incredible thought. You really think that's mundane??

Yes I do. To me that's just a fact, nothing more. Our origin are irrelevant to me.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/19/2012 1:39:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/18/2012 11:56:03 PM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
Well, even if it is the same old, why should that matter to you? If your question is "Why should I care about anything?", well, then, why do you care that it's the same old thing?

You're abstracting too much. Sensory experience is what life is about, not baggage-y words like "meaning". The senses provide true substance which can't be denied.

Have you read these lines from T.S. Eliot:

"We shall never cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time"

This implies that, as you gain knowledge, anything or any place that you have seen before, will appear a bit different, and newer than when you saw it the first time.

Unless you live your life in a vacuum, there is simply no way you can see the SAME thing all the time.

You are the one who's generalizing too much by saying the sensory experiences will be the same. If you cannot open your eyes enough to see a new thing, you will never see a new thing.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/21/2012 7:26:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/19/2012 12:43:09 PM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
At 1/19/2012 2:09:13 AM, Ren wrote:
Ooooo, here's another one:

Atoms can coalesce into complex elements required to support life, such as carbon, exclusively as a result of nuclear fusion compounded with the energy released during a supernova.

Therefore, that means two things:

Although not all (or even most) matter derives from stars, we and all life on this planet specifically, do. Moreover, it required that a star lived it's entire existence and died for our existence to be possible.

That's an incredible thought. You really think that's mundane??

Yes I do. To me that's just a fact, nothing more. Our origin are irrelevant to me.

What about my first example? Didn't you find that interesting? ;)
PhilosopherQueen
Posts: 7
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 12:46:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Unless you live your life in a vacuum, there is simply no way you can see the SAME thing all the time.

As far as the exact sensory details go, you're right. But the overall awareness of those concepts make it seem dull. Why would I want to see yet another carpet and whatever particular pattern that carpet has? its just a bunch of stuff after all. So its not just about the sensory details but what those details trigger. Everyday details carry that "everyday" first for a reason.
Thaddeus
Posts: 6,985
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 10:20:54 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/19/2012 12:43:09 PM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
At 1/19/2012 2:09:13 AM, Ren wrote:
Ooooo, here's another one:

Atoms can coalesce into complex elements required to support life, such as carbon, exclusively as a result of nuclear fusion compounded with the energy released during a supernova.

Therefore, that means two things:

Although not all (or even most) matter derives from stars, we and all life on this planet specifically, do. Moreover, it required that a star lived it's entire existence and died for our existence to be possible.

That's an incredible thought. You really think that's mundane??

Yes I do. To me that's just a fact, nothing more. Our origin are irrelevant to me.

"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle."
I won't condescend by attributing that quote, but it is true. Neither position is "more correct" but I know which way I'd prefer to see the world.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 1:51:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 12:46:30 AM, PhilosopherQueen wrote:
Unless you live your life in a vacuum, there is simply no way you can see the SAME thing all the time.

As far as the exact sensory details go, you're right. But the overall awareness of those concepts make it seem dull. Why would I want to see yet another carpet and whatever particular pattern that carpet has? its just a bunch of stuff after all. So its not just about the sensory details but what those details trigger. Everyday details carry that "everyday" first for a reason.

You are trying really hard NOT to find any meaning, aren't you?

Well, if you try that hard in finding meaning, you definitely can, you know.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.