Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Incredibly Simple Philosophy of FREEDO

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.

For you see, contradiction is inescapable for a thoughtful mind that insists on staying literal. Nothing makes sense once you've thought about it long enough. If you're truly brave enough to follow every logic to it's end; to see how far the rabid whole goes; you'll surely go mad. For there is no end. It goes deeper and deeper, my friend. Turtles all the way down.

If I am to stay completely literal, I may shoot an arrow at a target and declare that, before reaching that target, it must have first reached a half-way point. And before that point, it first reached another half-way. Then I would conclude that the arrow could never possibly move. For there's always a distance it must have traveled before hand, which turns any distance into infinite distance. But you see, the first place we go wrong is in thinking that there's ever really such thing as a point. Sure, in practical terms, the idea of a point makes sense. But not literally. It's just an abstraction, like a number. An idea that doesn't physically exist anywhere. It for the same reasons that we seem to observe that particles exist in two places in the same instance. Because we forget that we drew the lines. We may choose to consider these things "true" anyway. But that only gets us anywhere in a practical situation where the idea is needed, and to the extent that it's needed. If it were "objectively" true, then it would have an actual physical existence. We have no way of knowing whether there truly is anything physical at all. I'm not very sure anyone even knows what they mean by "physical". A is A, sure. But how else can you define A? Only in ways you makeup.

Where the first three paragraphs have been extremely informative and, at once, entirely failed to clarify anything, now I will actually attempt to explain what the simplicity really is.

My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

Politics assumes that humans have already failed and must deal with the consequences as best we can. Philosophy assumes that humans are already lost and we must find our way. Yet, our failure is in our attempt to deal with it. And we become lost in our searching.

You're swimming down-stream. Relax and just let the current take you. But don't take letting go too seriously, or else you're just holding on to letting go. You don't achieve anything by letting go. In the same way that you don't usually achieve anything by singing a song. You just sing to sing. You listen to music to hear it, not to reach it's end.

This may be recognized by people as "Zen", "Taoism" or some other eastern philosophy. And you can call it whatever you want. I call it many things but usually nothing at all. And I would always advise to stay away from applying any label to yourself or others for too long. It only serves to narrow your thinking and distract you from the point. The point that isn't there. If we are to call it Zen, then we may at least add that my Zen will always be very different from your Zen. And they will not stay the same over time, either.

Open to Q&A.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.


Is this serious?
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:07:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.


Is this serious?

Are you even real bro?
Nolite Timere
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 5:13:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.

For you see, contradiction is inescapable for a thoughtful mind that insists on staying literal. Nothing makes sense once you've thought about it long enough. If you're truly brave enough to follow every logic to it's end; to see how far the rabid whole goes; you'll surely go mad. For there is no end. It goes deeper and deeper, my friend. Turtles all the way down.

If I am to stay completely literal, I may shoot an arrow at a target and declare that, before reaching that target, it must have first reached a half-way point. And before that point, it first reached another half-way. Then I would conclude that the arrow could never possibly move. For there's always a distance it must have traveled before hand, which turns any distance into infinite distance. But you see, the first place we go wrong is in thinking that there's ever really such thing as a point. Sure, in practical terms, the idea of a point makes sense. But not literally. It's just an abstraction, like a number. An idea that doesn't physically exist anywhere. It for the same reasons that we seem to observe that particles exist in two places in the same instance. Because we forget that we drew the lines. We may choose to consider these things "true" anyway. But that only gets us anywhere in a practical situation where the idea is needed, and to the extent that it's needed. If it were "objectively" true, then it would have an actual physical existence. We have no way of knowing whether there truly is anything physical at all. I'm not very sure anyone even knows what they mean by "physical". A is A, sure. But how else can you define A? Only in ways you makeup.

Where the first three paragraphs have been extremely informative and, at once, entirely failed to clarify anything, now I will actually attempt to explain what the simplicity really is.

My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

Politics assumes that humans have already failed and must deal with the consequences as best we can. Philosophy assumes that humans are already lost and we must find our way. Yet, our failure is in our attempt to deal with it. And we become lost in our searching.

You're swimming down-stream. Relax and just let the current take you. But don't take letting go too seriously, or else you're just holding on to letting go. You don't achieve anything by letting go. In the same way that you don't usually achieve anything by singing a song. You just sing to sing. You listen to music to hear it, not to reach it's end.

This may be recognized by people as "Zen", "Taoism" or some other eastern philosophy. And you can call it whatever you want. I call it many things but usually nothing at all. And I would always advise to stay away from applying any label to yourself or others for too long. It only serves to narrow your thinking and distract you from the point. The point that isn't there. If we are to call it Zen, then we may at least add that my Zen will always be very different from your Zen. And they will not stay the same over time, either.

Open to Q&A.

I like it. I like your philisophy.

However, I simply can't live it. I can't live it because I have found my freedom and redemption from the things I can't understand through God. I can't go my own way because I must go God's way. Luckily for me, God's way is how I can come to true freedom, happiness, and morality.

If this is my ignorance, then I am happy to live in such an ignorance.
Nolite Timere
philochristos
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2013 7:15:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness.

I can't tell whether you're being serious about any of this or not.
"Not to know of what things one should demand demonstration, and of what one should not, argues want of education." ~Aristotle

"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ~Aristotle
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 8:37:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 5:07:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.


Is this serious?

Are you even real bro?

Yes. I'm Sur Real.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 10:26:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.

For you see, contradiction is inescapable for a thoughtful mind that insists on staying literal. Nothing makes sense once you've thought about it long enough. If you're truly brave enough to follow every logic to it's end; to see how far the rabid whole goes; you'll surely go mad. For there is no end. It goes deeper and deeper, my friend. Turtles all the way down.

If I am to stay completely literal, I may shoot an arrow at a target and declare that, before reaching that target, it must have first reached a half-way point. And before that point, it first reached another half-way. Then I would conclude that the arrow could never possibly move. For there's always a distance it must have traveled before hand, which turns any distance into infinite distance. But you see, the first place we go wrong is in thinking that there's ever really such thing as a point. Sure, in practical terms, the idea of a point makes sense. But not literally. It's just an abstraction, like a number. An idea that doesn't physically exist anywhere. It for the same reasons that we seem to observe that particles exist in two places in the same instance. Because we forget that we drew the lines. We may choose to consider these things "true" anyway. But that only gets us anywhere in a practical situation where the idea is needed, and to the extent that it's needed. If it were "objectively" true, then it would have an actual physical existence. We have no way of knowing whether there truly is anything physical at all. I'm not very sure anyone even knows what they mean by "physical". A is A, sure. But how else can you define A? Only in ways you makeup.

Where the first three paragraphs have been extremely informative and, at once, entirely failed to clarify anything, now I will actually attempt to explain what the simplicity really is.

My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

Politics assumes that humans have already failed and must deal with the consequences as best we can. Philosophy assumes that humans are already lost and we must find our way. Yet, our failure is in our attempt to deal with it. And we become lost in our searching.

You're swimming down-stream. Relax and just let the current take you. But don't take letting go too seriously, or else you're just holding on to letting go. You don't achieve anything by letting go. In the same way that you don't usually achieve anything by singing a song. You just sing to sing. You listen to music to hear it, not to reach it's end.

This may be recognized by people as "Zen", "Taoism" or some other eastern philosophy. And you can call it whatever you want. I call it many things but usually nothing at all. And I would always advise to stay away from applying any label to yourself or others for too long. It only serves to narrow your thinking and distract you from the point. The point that isn't there. If we are to call it Zen, then we may at least add that my Zen will always be very different from your Zen. And they will not stay the same over time, either.

Open to Q&A.

Where does weed fit into all this?
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/27/2013 11:48:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

So you dislike philosophy's attempts to uncover truth to life, yet in your objections to the aims of philosophy you have created your own. How is your anti-philosophy any different to positive philosophy when both you and they assert how it is best to live your life by following a particular school of thought? That *is* philosophy.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

So the way to enlightenment is by switching off your brain. Don't ask questions, don't attempt to understand your motives, and don't attempt to understand the motives of others. ' Live and let live'. Life isn't that simple. Philosophy may get it wrong for the most part, but it's value is in it's attempts to deconstruct memes and human behaviour to come to a place of deeper understanding of the human condition. It may require labels, but that is only symptomatic of the diversity of thought and cultural identity which frames branches of philosophy. Philosophy is a language of the mind. You wouldn't cease to communicate with others for fear of appearing close-minded or limiting in your approach, would you? It is all a dialogue.
Wren_cyborg
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/28/2013 11:15:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:48:52 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

So you dislike philosophy's attempts to uncover truth to life, yet in your objections to the aims of philosophy you have created your own. How is your anti-philosophy any different to positive philosophy when both you and they assert how it is best to live your life by following a particular school of thought? That *is* philosophy.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

So the way to enlightenment is by switching off your brain. Don't ask questions, don't attempt to understand your motives, and don't attempt to understand the motives of others. ' Live and let live'. Life isn't that simple. Philosophy may get it wrong for the most part, but it's value is in it's attempts to deconstruct memes and human behaviour to come to a place of deeper understanding of the human condition. It may require labels, but that is only symptomatic of the diversity of thought and cultural identity which frames branches of philosophy. Philosophy is a language of the mind. You wouldn't cease to communicate with others for fear of appearing close-minded or limiting in your approach, would you? It is all a dialogue.

I don't get the impression he is saying to "switch off your brain." When I look at DDO, I see a place that talks a LOT about politics and philosophy without ever being able to affect what I'm going to have for breakfast the next day. There's a certain logic in remembering that becoming extremely abstract with ideas can pull them out of reality. To be a philosopher, it is just as important to know how to ignore philosophy as it is to discover it. Philosophy is a tool, and it can wag the proverbial dog if not second-guessed itself.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:32:38 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:31:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is this serious?

Which part?

I quoted it... That's what I meant. The part where you said something about not usually being serious.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:33:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 5:13:08 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
I like it. I like your philisophy.

However, I simply can't live it. I can't live it because I have found my freedom and redemption from the things I can't understand through God. I can't go my own way because I must go God's way. Luckily for me, God's way is how I can come to true freedom, happiness, and morality.

If this is my ignorance, then I am happy to live in such an ignorance.

Nah, close enough. Apples n' oranges. As long as you play nice and never pour the milk in the bowl before the cereal, you're all good.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:33:42 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:32:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:31:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is this serious?

Which part?

I quoted it... That's what I meant. The part where you said something about not usually being serious.

That part has lots of parts.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:34:28 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:33:42 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:32:38 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/30/2013 12:31:02 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
Is this serious?

Which part?

I quoted it... That's what I meant. The part where you said something about not usually being serious.

That part has lots of parts.

The whole first paragraph mostly.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:35:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 10:26:35 AM, Magic8000 wrote:
Where does weed fit into all this?

Weed is how I can reach these conclusions (anti-conclusions?) without having a mental breakdown.

+532 FREEDO points
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:36:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:34:28 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
The whole first paragraph mostly.

In that case, I was mostly serious.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 12:40:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 11:48:52 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
So you dislike philosophy's attempts to uncover truth to life, yet in your objections to the aims of philosophy you have created your own. How is your anti-philosophy any different to positive philosophy when both you and they assert how it is best to live your life by following a particular school of thought? That *is* philosophy.

Yeah, probably. Lets go with that. I lose. I'm going home to eat cake.

So the way to enlightenment is by switching off your brain. Don't ask questions, don't attempt to understand your motives, and don't attempt to understand the motives of others.

That's me. Good ol' FREEDO. Never thinking. Never asking questions. Never stirring up trouble.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:10:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
My philosophy is also what I prefer to refer to as "anti-philosophy". In the sense that, philosophy is most understood as an attempt to try to understand the world and pick it apart. My philosophy on the other hand, the type that focuses on action and attitude rather than theory or truth, asserts that it's vastly preferable to let go of such thoughts and to live life without necessarily having to understand what it means.

Stop worrying about how you exist, and you will discover what it means to exist for the first time.

Stop worrying about who you are and you will become yourself.

Stop worrying about how to be moral and you'll have an easier time being it.

There are two paradoxical philosophies that I accept.

There is the Krishnamurti approach who says that thought has led to much of mans problems, thought creates division in the mind and is the root of conflict. He says to let go of thought. Thought is not going to solve our problems, because these problems have come into being through the activities of thought.

On the other hand there is the Heideggerian proposition that if you're not thinking about existence and being, then you're not really thinking at all and therefore not a man of being, but rather an inauthentic man.

"Heidegger considered that language, everyday curiosity, logical systems, and common beliefs obscure Dasein's nature from itself. Authentic choice means turning away from the collective world of Them, to face Dasein, one's individuality, one's own limited life-span, one's own being."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

I believe that these two philosophers are referring to different types of thought. Krishnamurti is condemning "mind chatter" and "over-thinking" and creating complexities with ideologies.

Heidegger is praising contemplation, "intention," and care.

Live life and experience it, perceive it, without the need to label everything, cut it down to size and stick it in a box. Without the need for idea-systems or building walls of thought. Deconstruct your walls and find that you have more room to explore.

Forget about politics or philosophy and spend all your extra time thinking about what you want to do with your life or how you'd like to express yourself and be creative.

But what if I engage in these things for my own enjoyment or stimulation?

Politics assumes that humans have already failed and must deal with the consequences as best we can. Philosophy assumes that humans are already lost and we must find our way. Yet, our failure is in our attempt to deal with it. And we become lost in our searching.

Politics is necessary when you and/or others are being subjugated by a governing body that restricts your ability act freely in the world and reap the benefits/consequences unhindered.

We can be free in our mind attitudinally and go about our lives in spite of an oppressive/tyrannical situation, so I am in no way suggesting that we can't enjoy our lives to the fullest in the mean time. In life, there's adversity, and challenges. Politics are one of those necessary adversities in life.

Philosophy doesn't assume we are lost, some might engage in philosophy to enhance their thought, their critical thinking, their ability to experience the world better through a clearer lens.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:17:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/27/2013 8:37:54 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 5:07:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.


Is this serious?

Are you even real bro?

Yes. I'm Sur Real.

Dude, the pun is "Sir Real"
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:17:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Any given person's philosophy is never consistent, especially if they think it is and even more especially if they know it isn't.

At the end of it all, I enjoy the struggle of it. I enjoy rattling my brain and figuring things out. But if I have any honesty, I have to at least know in the back of mind that I have absolutely no idea about any of it.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 1:34:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:40:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:48:52 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
So the way to enlightenment is by switching off your brain. Don't ask questions, don't attempt to understand your motives, and don't attempt to understand the motives of others.

That's me. Good ol' FREEDO. Never thinking. Never asking questions. Never stirring up trouble.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:11:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:21:43 AM, FREEDO wrote:
I don't really even exist, but if I did, this is probably what I would say

Lol! That was a good one.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,091
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2013 10:13:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 1:17:45 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/27/2013 8:37:54 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 5:07:29 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 11/26/2013 9:08:55 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.


Is this serious?

Are you even real bro?

Yes. I'm Sur Real.

Dude, the pun is "Sir Real"

Yeah but if I said "Sir Real" there wouldn't be the pun of "Surreal"... ;-P
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
InvictusManeo
Posts: 384
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2013 8:11:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/30/2013 12:40:20 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 11/27/2013 11:48:52 PM, InvictusManeo wrote:
So you dislike philosophy's attempts to uncover truth to life, yet in your objections to the aims of philosophy you have created your own. How is your anti-philosophy any different to positive philosophy when both you and they assert how it is best to live your life by following a particular school of thought? That *is* philosophy.

Yeah, probably. Lets go with that. I lose. I'm going home to eat cake.

So the way to enlightenment is by switching off your brain. Don't ask questions, don't attempt to understand your motives, and don't attempt to understand the motives of others.

That's me. Good ol' FREEDO. Never thinking. Never asking questions. Never stirring up trouble.

You're aaalllllright, kid.
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 8:38:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 11/26/2013 4:36:46 AM, FREEDO wrote:
Confusion has become what I'm known for. This is due to several traits of mine. I'm usually not serious. I often can't tell or couldn't care less whether I'm serious or not. When I am serious, I'm still not serious. And even if I'm so serious that I'm also not non-serious, I may be phrasing it in some way for reasons completely unrelated to it's seriousness. I sometimes speak only for the purpose of irony, puns or thought-experiment, all while playing a game with myself of seeing how many double-meanings I can have. And sometimes it's just plain gibberish. Sometimes I say things and come up with a meaning for it later. But I contend that the greatest reason above all for our confusion is thusly this; that my ideas are far too simple, among minds, particularly my own, that can only see clearly before them when the way is lit by the light of a thousand made-up rules to cover up the existence of bare contradiction, everywhere and everywhen.

For you see, contradiction is inescapable for a thoughtful mind that insists on staying literal. Nothing makes sense once you've thought about it long enough. If you're truly brave enough to follow every logic to it's end; to see how far the rabid whole goes; you'll surely go mad. For there is no end. It goes deeper and deeper, my friend. Turtles all the way down.

If I am to stay completely literal, I may shoot an arrow at a target and declare that, before reaching that target, it must have first reached a half-way point. And before that point, it first reached another half-way. Then I would conclude that the arrow could never possibly move. For there's always a distance it must have traveled before hand, which turns any distance into infinite distance. But you see, the first place we go wrong is in thinking that there's ever really such thing as a point. Sure, in practical terms, the idea of a point makes sense. But not literally. It's just an abstraction, like a number. An idea that doesn't physically exist anywhere. It for the same reasons that we seem to observe that particles exist in two places in the same instance. Because we forget that we drew the lines. We may choose to consider these things "true" anyway. But that only gets us anywhere in a practical situation where the idea is needed, and to the extent that it's needed. If it were "objectively" true, then it would have an actual physical existence. We have no way of knowing whether there truly is anything physical at all. I'm not very sure anyone even knows what they mean by "physical". A is A, sure. But how else can you define A? Only in ways you makeup.

The above is complete nonsense, for reasons you'll understand if you ever venture into philosophy as a discipline.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 11:52:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 8:38:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The above is complete nonsense, for reasons you'll understand if you ever venture into philosophy as a discipline.

Yes.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:03:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 11:52:48 AM, FREEDO wrote:
At 12/4/2013 8:38:54 AM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
The above is complete nonsense, for reasons you'll understand if you ever venture into philosophy as a discipline.

Yes.

Zeno's Paradoxes has been resolved. The ontological status of things like "math," "value," and "space" are still debated among philosophers. And we've known that we can't directly experience noumena since Kant.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:04:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
tl;dr: Your arguments are complete bullhooey.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2013 1:04:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 12/4/2013 1:04:17 PM, Eitan_Zohar wrote:
tl;dr: Your arguments are complete bullhooey.

But I bet you can't lick your elbow.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord