Page 168 of 168
#6682
Quote by gonzaw


Your irony levels are lacking. Shit b8. Those memes are too old-school.

>inb4 you try to say that I took this too seriously... it is simply a matter of a lack of comprehension on your part... maybe one day you will unlock this 7th layer of irony (or is it?)
.
#6686
Quote by gonzaw
But no, really, the whole "Jesus in Islam + Christianity" thing feels too underdeveloped.
It'd be like Catholics now saying "Oh yeah Zeus was real" and then dropping it and never talking about it again.


Catholics already have enough nonsense to explain without adding Zues to it.

The Jesus character is much much older than Christianity or Islam. It's gone by many names.
Last edited by EyeNon15 at Jul 23, 2016,
#6687
What if God's the Devil and Lucifer's God?
In a message that has one truth 'The Devil lies to me'..

Christianity is based on things we know to be false.
Virgin birth and resurrection. Think about it.
Quote by laid-to-waste
look nigga, if you're chillin with 5 bros and 2 hos, you're gonna wanna pay attention to all of em equally. not moon over the hos forever and laugh at every shitty thing they say and just stare at them all night, like some of my mates do.
#6688
Quote by treborillusion
What if God's the Devil and Lucifer's God?
In a message that has one truth 'The Devil lies to me'..

Christianity is based on things we know to be false.
Virgin birth and resurrection. Think about it.


What if both are Lucifer and the Bible is a script for a play he wrote, and he gave it to us to play the part and give him entertainment?
#6689
Privatio boni in early-early Christianity
.
Last edited by Fat Lard at Jul 24, 2016,
#6691
Is Slacker dead?
But we little know until tried how much of the uncontrollable there is in us, urging across glaciers and torrents, and up dangerous heights, let the judgment forbid as it may.
#6692
Quote by gonzaw
If privatio boni is true, does it mean that vaccum is the most evil thing that exists? Something that has nothing in it can't have anything good in it.
Should we be sending nuclear bombs into space to fight the evil vaccum?


It would mean there's no such thing as ebilz, just the absence of good
.
#6694
Quote by Dreadnought
Is Slacker dead?
I just clicked on this thread to ask the same thing. I loved reading his posts.

His profile says last online: Jun 26, 2016, so maybe he's been lurking. Can't remember how long since I've seen him on, but it's definitely more than a month ago.
Last edited by The4thHorsemen at Jul 25, 2016,
#6700
Quote by gonzaw
But how do the comics arrive in time ..... SINCE MOTION IS IMPOSSIBLE!!!???


It's only ever halfway to Monday's release time. But even going halfway to Monday's release requires going halfway to that point, and and and
Quote by bass.desires
staring at your forum avatar relaxes me.
#6701
"The rudest is always right... for rudeness is better than any argument; it totally eclipses intellect"

-Schopenhauer in The Wisdom of Trolling
.
#6702
"Let me recommend our purists to adopt the expression baiting, instead of duel..."

Holy shit he was so ahead of his time
.
Last edited by Fat Lard at Aug 1, 2016,
#6704
To me, personally, it feels that the whole "take some LSD/DMT if you want to do some real philosophy, dude" thing is kind of bullshit. Sure it might make some people realize things they never thought about before (specially regarding perception and things like that), but it won't make anybody figure stuff out that they couldn't have figured out without drugs. In fact, based on the effects of drugs on the brain and mental state of people it may seem like it might negatively influence the way people think about philosophy after taking them. You know, the whole "nothing is real! everything is connected through the aether man!" stuff.

I do find the drug stuff interesting when it relates to the ideas of:
  • How exactly do our senses work? How does our understanding of said stimuli work? Is this stimuli and processing related to reality somehow?
  • When I try to gain knowledge or understand reality, I follow certain processes and structures, like logic, induction, finding connections/patterns, and many more. Is that the only way to gain knowledge? Is that the only way to bound my thoughts and reasonings on certain subjects?
  • When I think and try to figure out stuff, I know those thoughts are bound and defined by my brain and my brain activity. This implies they are influenced by a lot of things, be them cultural, psychological, emotional, neurological, etc. If some of those change drastically, can they affect my thoughts in such a way that I could arrive at different, maybe more correct, conclusions?


Taking drugs could help greatly in those aspects above, but you can think about that stuff and discuss them and come to your own conclusions without having to inject mescaline into your eyeball (or whatever)
#6705
Of course, but Coleridge tripped out on drugs & Romanticism is the eternal nightmare from which Western civilization is trying to awake.
#6707
Quote by gonzaw
To me, personally, it feels that the whole "take some LSD/DMT if you want to do some real philosophy, dude" thing is kind of bullshit. Sure it might make some people realize things they never thought about before (specially regarding perception and things like that), but it won't make anybody figure stuff out that they couldn't have figured out without drugs. In fact, based on the effects of drugs on the brain and mental state of people it may seem like it might negatively influence the way people think about philosophy after taking them. You know, the whole "nothing is real! everything is connected through the aether man!" stuff.

I do find the drug stuff interesting when it relates to the ideas of:
  • How exactly do our senses work? How does our understanding of said stimuli work? Is this stimuli and processing related to reality somehow?
  • When I try to gain knowledge or understand reality, I follow certain processes and structures, like logic, induction, finding connections/patterns, and many more. Is that the only way to gain knowledge? Is that the only way to bound my thoughts and reasonings on certain subjects?
  • When I think and try to figure out stuff, I know those thoughts are bound and defined by my brain and my brain activity. This implies they are influenced by a lot of things, be them cultural, psychological, emotional, neurological, etc. If some of those change drastically, can they affect my thoughts in such a way that I could arrive at different, maybe more correct, conclusions?


Taking drugs could help greatly in those aspects above, but you can think about that stuff and discuss them and come to your own conclusions without having to inject mescaline into your eyeball (or whatever)


reported
.
#6708
Psychadelics are like ready-to-hand tools to philosophy as calculators are to math. Can't knock them just because a bunch of new-age degenerates that like Eastern aesthetics do them
.
#6709
Quote by Fat Lard
Psychadelics are like ready-to-hand tools to philosophy as calculators are to math. Can't knock them just because a bunch of new-age degenerates that like Eastern aesthetics do them


How so though? What kind of "new" insights do you get by taking psychadelics? Would you never get those new insights had you not taken drugs?
Last edited by gonzaw at Aug 4, 2016,
#6710
Quote by gonzaw
How so though? What kind of "new" insights do you get by taking psychadelics? Would you never get those new insights had you not taken drugs?


Yes, you wouldn't, but it really depends on the substance/person. Erowid.org trip reports of some of the different types (and different classes) might help show that.
.
#6711
Quote by Fat Lard
Yes, you wouldn't, but it really depends on the substance/person. Erowid.org trip reports of some of the different types (and different classes) might help show that.


Ok, but when someone else takes the drugs, has this new epiphany, and then decides to write about it, why doesn't it feel like a super breakthrough we all should be marvelled at, and it just feels like another "philosophical thing"?

If Plato came up with the theory of ideas and forms while super high for instance (didn't read much of the link to see if it was true or not, but whatever), why should I give it more credence than if he wasn't high when thinking it? It just feels like a normal philosophical theory to me. Should it be more truthful just because Plato was on drugs and thus he's "closer" to reality or whatever?
If the answer is no, then what difference is there if I take the drug and have a new theory? Should I tell myself that this new theory of mine is somehow more important or better just because I came up with it while taking drugs? Shouldn't it be held to the same exact standards as any other shit I've thought and writen when sober? Or would it just be naturally better and have better argumentations for it just because I came up with it under psychadelics?
Last edited by gonzaw at Aug 5, 2016,
#6712
Because it was an important, supplementary piece in helping him think those things up. Idk man, all I'm saying is that seeing people talk about this stuff at times is worse than virgins describing sex
.
#6713
How do I start reading Hegel?

Do I need to get acquainted with any preceding philosophers to properly understand Hegel or do I just start with him?

I've also heard that his works are hard to read to the power of bare hella. Should I maybe pick up some essays on his work or maybe start with a book reviewing his works? Maybe any good video series or podcasts?


Weird techno music suddenly crests the horizon.

#6714
Bearing in mind I've only read the smallest of pieces of only one of the following, the general rule with Hegel Heidegger and Sartre is that you Read What Came Before. at the very least you'll need to know about the basic tenets of idealism

or at least get a guide just to make sure you don't miss out on those little words they use in special contexts. there are some great online lectures and presentations on Youtube. I especially recommend Oxford and Cambridge's online courses (also on itunes u), the latter of which, if I recall, takes lyrical work from the continent seriously enough to give decent lectures on it.
Last edited by Banjocal at Aug 5, 2016,
#6715
Quote by gonzaw
Ok, but when someone else takes the drugs, has this new epiphany, and then decides to write about it, why doesn't it feel like a super breakthrough we all should be marvelled at, and it just feels like another "philosophical thing"?

If Plato came up with the theory of ideas and forms while super high for instance (didn't read much of the link to see if it was true or not, but whatever), why should I give it more credence than if he wasn't high when thinking it? It just feels like a normal philosophical theory to me. Should it be more truthful just because Plato was on drugs and thus he's "closer" to reality or whatever?
If the answer is no, then what difference is there if I take the drug and have a new theory? Should I tell myself that this new theory of mine is somehow more important or better just because I came up with it while taking drugs? Shouldn't it be held to the same exact standards as any other shit I've thought and writen when sober? Or would it just be naturally better and have better argumentations for it just because I came up with it under psychadelics?


I think in Plato's sense it gives you a better idea of the Forms, and not getting locked down in rigid sense-perception (which Platonists/Neoplatonists/etc were about)

Having not only the knowledge but the actual feeling/experience helps make it more profound But that's just one example of psychs as a tool. Its effects on introspection/feeling/psyche/etc are much deeper than "woah look at the colors"

Things that one might think they understand might not truly 'kick in' until etc./recollecting on it.

But yes, shouldn't hold more thoughts as better simply because they were made whilst tripping. But conversely also shouldn't discredit them because they don't seem as 'materialistic'. They're just tools (that mustn't be abused)

------------------

Quote by JamSessionFreak
How do I start reading Hegel?

Do I need to get acquainted with any preceding philosophers to properly understand Hegel or do I just start with him?

I've also heard that his works are hard to read to the power of bare hella. Should I maybe pick up some essays on his work or maybe start with a book reviewing his works? Maybe any good video series or podcasts?


I haven't read him (but got a bit more interested in his 3 things when I found out it was about history from someone), but check out what William James said here for "how to read Hegel", lolol: http://highexistence.com/hidden-psychedelic-influence-philosophy-plato-nietzsche-psychonauts-thoughts/
.
Last edited by Fat Lard at Aug 5, 2016,
#6716
Another important thing that psychs teach (besides woah colors) is more about time.

Reading this stuff about Thoth Hermes Trismegistus and came across "...from an infinite beginning to an infinite end, for the beginning and end are at the same state." I've heard this thing where if a hypothetical 2D being existed, it could never truly apprehend the 3rd dimension as it is, but have ideas about it. Whereas a 4D being would see the 4th dimension as thing-in-itself.

You can kind of subjectively experience that with certain psychs from what I've read. Thinking long statements/'paragraphs' of thought at a single point/all-at-once, and other things about time that's hard to describe but is probably done so better in select erowid.org trip reports.
.
#6718
What philosopher should I check out after the 2 volumes of World as Will and Representation?

Going to be a while before I even touch that though, as I wanted to get more into fiction/etc. Finish Infinite Jest, then maybe one thing each of Faulkner, Kafka, Pynchon...


Maybe Sam Harris? What's good by him from anyone that's read him.
.
#6719
I've started to read all of Plato's dialogues. It's pretty fun to watch Socrates put everybody in their place in that lovely "oh you are so wonderful and wise, but what about this other thing?" tone

EDIT: Also it'd be pretty bitching to be around ancient Athens partying up with all those rich philosopher dudes. Well, except for all the slavery ... and the pederasty
Last edited by gonzaw at Nov 21, 2016,