Philosophy

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Just had a thought. And I haven't even had my second coffee yet.

My initial nihilism led to a cloud of conflicting hedonistic and suicidal urges. Those suicidal urges abated after a short while. I've written about it before, somewhere.

Anyway, hedonism. It's an interesting concept. Mine is more of an "economic" hedonism. Protracted and subdued; prudent. It wasn't like that at first. A new, fresh nihilist can be a very impatient, inefficient hedonist. Impatient hedonism can lead to the negation of hedonistic opportunity. Prudent hedonism can lead to a lifetime of hedonistic thrills, but with reduced variety, magnitude and spontaneity.

Rambling. Right, need coffee.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Up until the point where he said "liberal pap they are force-fed at school," this sounded exacly like me. I was impressed. But I don't know where he got the idea that schools are liberal. I guess he meant public schools. Anyway, at the end of his description, I think he confused the people like me, who are generally interested in Nietshe's ideas, with the loser kids who just think nihilists are cool. Otherwise excellent article, though, really.

thanks for responding to the article man, whenever I post a link I mainly just want to see different reactions, its even more interesting when its an op-ed kind of thing.

[Bombadillo]

Originally Posted by Rev. Justin Timberlake

Just had a thought. And I haven't even had my second coffee yet.

My initial nihilism led to a cloud of conflicting hedonistic and suicidal urges. Those suicidal urges abated after a short while. I've written about it before, somewhere.

Anyway, hedonism. It's an interesting concept. Mine is more of an "economic" hedonism. Protracted and subdued; prudent. It wasn't like that at first. A new, fresh nihilist can be a very impatient, inefficient hedonist. Impatient hedonism can lead to the negation of hedonistic opportunity. Prudent hedonism can lead to a lifetime of hedonistic thrills, but with reduced variety, magnitude and spontaneity.

Rambling. Right, need coffee.

OT ("O" for "off"): My car wouldn't start this Tuesday morning and so I've been taking the bus to school instead, even though it's below a senior and I have to wake up earlier for it. Wednesday I was more tired and twenty minutes earlier than usual, so I walked down to the cafeteria and discovered excellent, fresh-brewed coffe at 50 cents a cup. It was like a dream come true.

OT ("O" for "on"): What's great about this thread is that it's a learning process rather than just a talking process. I might have spent two pages explaining my attitudes on joy and goodness without realizing that a single word would have been enough. Hedonism. That's good to know.

Do you think you could elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by prudent hedonism, or economic for that matter, but mainly prudent. I wonder if I'm aware enough of how I feel say which seems more like me.

I remember when your posts were melancholy, suicidal, and depressing. It seems like you're suddenly so fun and so lucid again that that's probably why I didn't recognize you. That's really good to know. I used to get so worried, thinking that online you probably showed just a fraction of what you were feeling and there was nothing I could do for you. I'm really, really glad you're better.

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

thanks for responding to the article man, whenever I post a link I mainly just want to see different reactions, its even more interesting when its an op-ed kind of thing.

No problem. I wasn't being courteous; it was an interesting article. Op-eds usually do tend to be more interesting.

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I personally think people like to belong to something greater than themselves like a sports team, supporting a political party or sports team, a school or university or etc.

I guess you could be nihilistic and do the above though.

Except I think wanting to belong to something applies to ideas and philosophies as well. I think that's one reason religions are popular.

I am not trying to start a religious discussion, I'm just using it as an example.

I agree. Sooner or later though, everyone must stop to think about their motivations, and then figure out that hey, I don't have to belong to any sort of group. Then they can either do their own thing or decide that they do legitimately belong in that group. Some people confront this decision almost instantly, and for others it takes decades. It probably depends on how often they analyze their own motivations and how confident they are in admitting them.

At least, that just seems to me like one of those things that everybody goes through. I think you all know what I mean.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Apologies for the delay, I wasn't really in the mood to think. Still kinda meh, haven't had any coffee, so please bear with my ramblings.

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

Do you think you could elaborate? I'm not sure what you mean by prudent hedonism, or economic for that matter, but mainly prudent. I wonder if I'm aware enough of how I feel say which seems more like me.

I could refer to prudent hedonism as a corollary of philosophical hedonism (i.e. that which brings pleasure is good and must be persued).

If being prudent means to be careful about one's interests, then prudent hedonism means to be careful about one's hedonism; most importantly, to act (and be hedonistic) in such a way that allows for continuing hedonistic opportunity, and perhaps to act in such a way that results in maximum hedonism over the course of one's life; to be hedonistically efficient and effective (i.e. economic)

In other words, I could indulge in pure hedonism and perhaps die in a few hours, or days. Or be locked up for life. But wouldn't it be better if I could continue to live in a hedonistic fashion? "Of course it is!" cries the proponent of philisophical hedonism. If pleasure is good, no pleasure is not good, therefore pleasure is better, therefore having the opportunity to be pleasured is better.

Two big threats to the quality of one's hedonism is the emphasis on being prudent, and the magnitude of one's nihilism.

Nihilism is a powerful thing. The ability to shrug and say "that's okay" in the face of anything. "Supercharged apathy" is one way to look at it.

I remember when your posts were melancholy, suicidal, and depressing. It seems like you're suddenly so fun and so lucid again that that's probably why I didn't recognize you. That's really good to know. I used to get so worried, thinking that online you probably showed just a fraction of what you were feeling and there was nothing I could do for you. I'm really, really glad you're better.

Thanks. My next depression should start in a few weeks time, if the diagnosis of SAD is correct. Until then, just goin' with the flow.

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by Rian

IMO one should go further and think about if they are valid or not, and why or why not.

If one cares about being right and stuff, that is. Some of us just couldn't care less.

[rohirrim TR]

Originally Posted by RJT

..."Supercharged apathy"...

this cracked me up, just think about that phrase for a minute the first time i've ever heard supercharged and apathy being used to describe each other. hilarious its like saying intensely apathetic. Oh thats funny. wow awesome. I'm gonna have to read through this thead again to figure out what its about when i saw that phrase I lost track of the thread.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Yes, quite ironic, isn't it?

[Rev. Justin Timberlake]

Originally Posted by rohirrim TR

this cracked me up, just think about that phrase for a minute

Glad you found it amusing.

[klatukatt]

Here's a philosophy.

In the beginning, _____ created the world. And ____ saw that it was ______.
Then ____, _____, and _____ happened and humans came along.
They built many things used for killing each other.
Eventually, they developed more subtle ways of killing each other, until it wasn't called killing at all, but "technological progress." They found ways to make humans kill themselves.

And it was good.

Go death! Especially self-inflicted death...

[Gwaimir Windgem]

*bump*

Since this discussion has died down, I propose a new topic:

Platonic Forms: Yes or No?

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

] Platonic Forms: Yes or No?

Nope, not for me... the whole cave analogy with the prisoners looking at the shadows seemed like a load of **** to me.
its been awhile cant remember in all its details. i believe i believe something along these lines as far as the forms go:
Form of Chair --> yes
Form of Justice --> maybe
Form of the Good --> no

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Why form of chair, yes?

[rohirrim TR]

what are y'all talking about? did I miss something?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

The Platonic Forms. According to Plato (as articulated through the mouth of Socrates), there exist what he calls 'forms', in a way abstract archetypes of all things that exist, such that, for example, a chair can only be called a chair insofar as it participates in the Form of Chair, the forms thus preceding and lending their own identity to material things.

[Millane]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Why form of chair, yes?

well i agree that we have some grasp of the concept of a chair, which explains why we can see any number of chairs that are physically different and still be able to call them a chair... in that way i agree with him, however i dont agree with any of his transcendental world of the forms, or that we have some knowledge of the forms when we're born or that we'll go to this transcendental world when we die. Pretty much i agree that we have a concept of a chair
It all gets complicated when he starts talking of the form of Justice etc, its easy enough to say there is a form of a chair that is eternal not so easy to say the same of justice.
Form of the Good, or the form of forms, you believe in or you dont. i dont.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

All right then; I understood you to mean you believed that the form of chair actually existed independently.

Anyone else care to take a stab at this question?

Me, I'm all about first substance. I agree with Aristotle here, not Plato.

[brownjenkins]

I prefer Aristotle's idea's over Plato's as well. Plato just complicated the picture by adding in the ideas about absolute ideal forms that were simply unnecessary. Aristotle seemed to realize the relative nature of human perception and that our musings on reality are just that.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

I was thinking more of the Categories when he said that "First Substance must be before any of the others (genera and species of substance and the other nine categories) can exist."

As I previously said, I'm all about first substance.

[Bombadillo]

Whooooooa! I like that proposal Gwai.

It looks like I'll have to do much more research before I can talk about all of the various forms and analogies of Plato's that have already been mentioned here. But first I'll explain why I believe what I believe right now.

Good and bad are present on Earth, and that seems to be the first thing we're ever aware of. I tend to think that when people deny this, they're probably either being silly or playing devil's advocate. (I'll welcome any input on that.) Good and bad are forces or something, which aren't competing against each other or influencing people's behaviour or doing anything sinister that people might associate with "mysterious forces." Just somewhere in the world, something bad is going on, and good is happening somewhere else, always.

Anyway, that seems like an inescapable fact to me. What complicates it is people's desire to classify everything as either good or bad, which isn't possible or necessary. Almost everything falls somewhere in between.

This is where Aristotle's BS about the relativity of reality comes into play. There is only one reality. This is another inescapable fact. People do inevitably observe different parts of it and so they percieve it and judge it differently, but their judgements are often wrong. They also try to label everything either good or bad sometimes, and again they are often wrong.

I could elaborate and provide examples if you want, but I won't make this particular post any longer than it has to be.
----
"Ever heard of Socrates? Plato? Aristotle? Morons!"

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Relativity of reality? I haven't read that in 'Totle. Course, I've only read the Categories, De Interpretatione, Prior and Posterior Analytics, and the beginning of the Topics. Where does he discuss this relativity?