This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Aether
Pages: 1 ... 414243 4445 ... 229
1261
« on: June 18, 2017, 09:45:08 PM »
What, nostalgia? Sure.
Not nostalgia. I was actually disoriented for around 10 seconds and couldn't remember where I was.
So you're saying you literally felt like you were back in your childhood and couldn't remember where you were or what time it was? That's fuckin weird.
1262
« on: June 18, 2017, 08:11:54 PM »
Dreading going back to work for my uncle the whole weekend.
1263
« on: June 18, 2017, 08:10:17 PM »
Well like yeah sure, but like not really, I mean maybe I guess so.
1264
« on: June 18, 2017, 08:08:51 PM »
What, nostalgia? Sure.
1265
« on: June 17, 2017, 02:05:53 PM »
I'm more of a listener than a talker.
1266
« on: June 17, 2017, 08:25:47 AM »
My thoughts are that the people who believe this are some of the biggest fools we have in today's society.
1267
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:34:54 PM »
i don't know why you would take it so literally
Well it just seems a bit disingenuous to say you would cope with stress only by yourself when you have no problem admitting to using external pleasure stimuli. You're very strict with your values, it's not that much of a stretch for someone to believe that you mean literally what you say at times. I would've gone for something more along the lines of, "I would use my hobbies and passions to cope, not drugs."
1268
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:24:20 PM »
I'm not concerned with your feelings on the difference between drugs and other pleasure stimuli as they're pretty easy to read.
You seemed to imply that you only use yourself to cope, which would exclude external pleasure stimuli. That is what I'm inquiring about.
why would i exclude external pleasure stimuli, that's not even physically possible unless you're fucking buddha
I'm not sure why you would but that's what you appeared to say.
1269
« on: June 16, 2017, 08:21:15 PM »
alternatively, i hope my life goes to complete and utter shit within the next few years
give me the shittiest and most miserably depressing life possible, and make it last for 20 or 30 years
i'll STILL have the strength to never use drugs, or alcohol, or any fucking thing to help me cope but myself
Wait you don't use any external stimuli for pleasure to help you cope with stress? Video games, movies, food, exercise etc?
to compare any of these things to recreational drug abuse whatsoever is so beyond retarded, and i'm sick to death of having to draw this basic distinction for people
the dopamine/serotonin released as a result of harmless activities like video games, movies, food, exercise, and other productive entertainments is not an illegitimate form of release
the happiness and comfort you achieve through these activities is earned, because you're doing something good and worthwhile
with drugs, you are forcing yourself into a state of pleasure that you did not earn or deserve—you didn't make someone's day better, you never gave someone a hug, you never asked how someone's day was, you never listened to a good story with a good payoff and/or lesson, you never accomplished any meaningful task—so why in the fuck do you deserve to feel happy
and if you're the sort of person who does both, then that's stupid too—the natural high you achieve through being a good and productive person should be MORE than enough for you
I'm not concerned with your feelings on the difference between drugs and other pleasure stimuli as they're pretty easy to read. You seemed to imply that you only use yourself to cope, which would exclude external pleasure stimuli. That is what I'm inquiring about.
1270
« on: June 16, 2017, 05:57:15 PM »
alternatively, i hope my life goes to complete and utter shit within the next few years
give me the shittiest and most miserably depressing life possible, and make it last for 20 or 30 years
i'll STILL have the strength to never use drugs, or alcohol, or any fucking thing to help me cope but myself
Wait you don't use any external stimuli for pleasure to help you cope with stress? Video games, movies, food, exercise etc?
1271
« on: June 15, 2017, 04:36:34 PM »
If only everyone with any amount of influence wasn't actively contributing to greater polarization.
More politically motivated violence is inevitable at this point.
1272
« on: June 14, 2017, 07:51:46 PM »
discrimination is worse than letting someone die, easily
you're such an inspiration for the ways that i will never ever choose to be
1273
« on: June 14, 2017, 07:25:55 PM »
the only thing bungie cares about is money
That would be Activision, which has utterly infected Bungie with its plague. At this point I'm not even sure if I consider them to really be Bungie anymore. Maybe a soulless husk that has had all manner of heart and spirit sucked out of it by gaming industry vampires.
1274
« on: June 14, 2017, 03:01:53 PM »
Very melodic but the lyrics are about a rapist/serial killer.
1275
« on: June 13, 2017, 08:48:10 PM »
oh look another face how typical 
1276
« on: June 13, 2017, 07:41:45 PM »
memes
1277
« on: June 11, 2017, 06:24:59 PM »
nicotine is garbage
1278
« on: June 11, 2017, 06:24:17 PM »
also when was feeling the need to carry a gun with you at all times considered a good thing
I don't think it's feeling the need for these people, but more so having the right.
1279
« on: June 11, 2017, 09:28:27 AM »
Oh you're fine but I miss the purple.
1280
« on: June 08, 2017, 04:46:46 PM »
We'll see. I've got my eye on Dogecoin, but I'm not so sure it will top those. I don't know too much about Dogecoin either; so we'll see. Bitcoin will continue to grow in price, but there's roughly 10 million left in it's decentralization; and it's also on C++. I believe Ethereum will become the Alpha Coin; because its aim and reach is for next-gen and it's on Javascript. Ripple isn't decentralized, as Bitcoin and Ether are. They can continue to mint those as they please, but will be revolved around bank transactions and currency conversions. I know just as much about NEM as I do Dogecoin and Kanyecoin. Litecoin has made some improvements over the year, and is based on Online Transactions. I could be wrong about some of this stuff, because there's just too much scattered info on each coin; it's almost like trying to learn another language, in a way. Though, I believe that Ether will eventually dominate the Crypto-Market. I invested in 6 Ether, for $15/ea., earlier this year; and now they're teetering around $250.
1281
« on: June 08, 2017, 03:47:00 PM »
Just remember; it's naught uh tombuh.
EDIT: btw this is my friend posting this thread. He's staying over and is too lazy to make an account.
1282
« on: June 06, 2017, 06:55:55 PM »
Why are people assuming Class is serious
I was just wondering the same thing.
1283
« on: June 06, 2017, 05:46:11 PM »
bowchickabowwow
1284
« on: June 06, 2017, 05:25:40 PM »
You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.
You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.
The last point I made, that all phenomena are interdependent, is not an opinion. It is the truth. Nothing that ever comes into being can exist without the conditions that manifest it.
That concepts are subjective is axiomatic. They don't exist outside of our subjective conceptualization. It is that conceptualization that creates them. That is why they are called concepts.
What you seem to be stating is that morality is more than a concept. Which is not how society defines it. You can choose to define morality this way but it does not align with the general definition of what morality is. You say that morality is suffering, but society defines morality as principles that are based on the meaning derived from suffering.
And society is wrong. Morality isn't a concept, it's a law. No different than gravity or conservation of matter.
You can't prove this to be an absolute truth. None of the examples you've given have done so.
It doesn't matter to me in the end, picking apart your perspective was interesting at least.
Just like yours haven't. You've restated the same talking points over and over without saying why they're true. You can use big words all day, they don't make you right.
Well I never said the way I see morality was objective. I said it was axiomatic. The only objective thing I said was that no phenomenon exists inherently. I'm sorry if the vocabulary I used offends you but those are the words used to describe the things I was trying to convey. I'm not the one who invented the English language.
1285
« on: June 06, 2017, 04:15:32 PM »
You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.
You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.
The last point I made, that all phenomena are interdependent, is not an opinion. It is the truth. Nothing that ever comes into being can exist without the conditions that manifest it.
That concepts are subjective is axiomatic. They don't exist outside of our subjective conceptualization. It is that conceptualization that creates them. That is why they are called concepts.
What you seem to be stating is that morality is more than a concept. Which is not how society defines it. You can choose to define morality this way but it does not align with the general definition of what morality is. You say that morality is suffering, but society defines morality as principles that are based on the meaning derived from suffering.
And society is wrong. Morality isn't a concept, it's a law. No different than gravity or conservation of matter.
You can't prove this to be an absolute truth. None of the examples you've given have done so. It doesn't matter to me in the end, picking apart your perspective was interesting at least.
1286
« on: June 06, 2017, 04:05:13 PM »
You state your opinion as if it's fact - it's not.
You THINK good and evil are subjective, and they aren't. They're objective. As long as a universe exists that can create suffering-capable life, morality is fixed.
The last point I made, that all phenomena are interdependent, is not an opinion. It is the truth. Nothing that ever comes into being can exist without the conditions that manifest it. That concepts are subjective is axiomatic. They don't exist outside of our subjective conceptualization. It is that conceptualization that creates them. That is why they are called concepts. What you seem to be stating is that morality is more than a concept. Which is not how society defines it. You can choose to define morality this way but it does not align with the general definition of what morality is. You say that morality is suffering, but society defines morality as principles that are based on the meaning derived from suffering.
1287
« on: June 06, 2017, 11:30:07 AM »
Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.
Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.
Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.
You have a very strange definition of morality. It doesn't make any logical sense to me, and it certainly doesn't align with what society axiomatically understands morality to be. How can morality just be suffering? Do you suffer by living a moral life? If morality is composed of good and evil, then would you say that good is suffering?
How is morality simply the pain we experience and not the meaning derived from that pain?
We already have a concept to define the pain we experience, which is suffering. Whether or not something is good or evil is an entirely different concept that is interdependent with suffering.
Any actual definition you can find of morality essentially states that it is the principles we use to define and distinguish good and evil. Nothing about the concept, as it is self-evidently defined by society, can be reduced to just the phenomenon of suffering.
And your definition is just as baffling. Suffering is a net bad, whether that be physical suffering or emotional. Any person with a modicum of logic could tell you that. Why on earth would suffering stop being bad just because that person isn't around to say so anymore? It's still bad, a gazelle being eaten alive is still in constant pain. If a schitzophrenic who has no external awareness shoots up a mall because he thinks everyone in the mall are Russian soldiers who are trying to kill him, did he shoot up the mall in self-defense? No, he mass murdered the people there - what he did was still evil, even if he couldn't come close to comprehening that.
Perhaps it's hard to understand this but the idea of good and evil is ultimately subjective. It is an interpretation of the meaning derived from suffering. A reality without sentience is one that has no concept of good and evil. All phenomena, including suffering, are merely the result of conditioning. Everything does as it is conditioned to do. This is simple cause and effect, action and reaction. Meaning has no inherent stake in this process, it is just a product of our perception of that process. Don't take this as some warped justification for a person to do anything that they want. To be a condition of suffering without having to bear the burden of responsibility that comes with it. Undoubtedly, if you are a condition of suffering then you will suffer yourself. You can never be free from suffering unless you yourself are not a condition of it. You don't have to understand morality to be an inherent part of reality to have the wisdom to follow a path that leads to freedom from suffering. No phenomena within the realm of duality exist inherently, everything is interdependent apart from the one truth that supersedes all others, and which all other truths are rooted in. I can't force you to see things the way I do, and I don't necessarily have a desire too, but at least try to understand that last part as it becomes the basis for understanding all other ideas with greater clarity.
1288
« on: June 06, 2017, 07:36:16 AM »
Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering.
Wrong. Morality is suffering. It doesn't matter if something is around to know that, it still is.
Look at my lion example above. Or if you'd prefer an analogy, think of a tree falling in a forest with no one around to hear it - it still makes a sound.
You have a very strange definition of morality. It doesn't make any logical sense to me, and it certainly doesn't align with what society axiomatically understands morality to be. How can morality just be suffering? Do you suffer by living a moral life? If morality is composed of good and evil, then would you say that good is suffering? How is morality simply the pain we experience and not the meaning derived from that pain? We already have a concept to define the pain we experience, which is suffering. Whether or not something is good or evil is an entirely different concept that is interdependent with suffering. Any actual definition you can find of morality essentially states that it is the principles we use to define and distinguish good and evil. Nothing about the concept, as it is self-evidently defined by society, can be reduced to just the phenomenon of suffering.
1289
« on: June 06, 2017, 06:54:16 AM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.
Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist
Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.
If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.
It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.
Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.
I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.
I get that you disagree, it's just perplexing that you see morality as inherent and more than just a concept when no meaning could ever be derived from suffering without the subjective interpretation of sentient beings.
Because who cares whether meaning is derived or not? Suffering is still there. Whether or not we know its bad is irrelevant.
Yes but morality is not suffering, it's based on the meaning we derive from suffering. Without us, no meaning is derived and suffering just is, as are all things that exist outside of the realm of our conceptualization.
1290
« on: June 05, 2017, 10:33:51 PM »
The real reason the is no sych thing as an objectively bad person is because good/bad is non-imperical and therefore unguagable.
Morality is objective as long as suffering exists.
To me this implies that morality is not objective but merely axiomatic. For me to understand it as objective, it would have to be more than just a concept conditioned by the subjective experience of sentient beings.
Ultimately nature does not define morality in any way, and without sentience to conceptualize morality, it doesn't exist.
Concepitalizing something =/= making it exist
Sentient beings can interpret something, sure. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist if it can't be interpreted.
If nothing but a predator and its prey existed, say a lion and a gazelle, it would still be highly immoral for the lion to eat the gazelle. Neither the lion nor gazelle would know it was an immoral act, but it still is.
When something is entirely a concept then yes, conceptualizing it is what brings it into existence.
It would seem that you define morality as the absence of harming or perhaps the absence of the conditioning of suffering. However that is not how I define it at all. Morality is not defined within nature. Reality does not present us with meaning to any phenomena that we encounter and experience, meaning arises as the result of our interpretation of these phenomena.
Morality for me is the path that leads to the minimization of suffering, not necessarily the actual absence of suffering or its roots. This definition is the result of my interpretation of suffering and what conditions it, and it would not exist without my conceptualizing it.
I simply disagree. Suffering is an INHERENT evil, and from that basic maxim we derive an objective morality.
I get that you disagree, it's just perplexing that you see morality as inherent and more than just a concept when no meaning could ever be derived from suffering without the subjective interpretation of sentient beings.
Pages: 1 ... 414243 4445 ... 229
|
Show Posts