| It's a fascinating venture of the human experience to live through our own desires and capacities to survive and thrive, but when do such notions begin to dampen the effect they initially offered? It's all well-and-good for us, as people, to attempt to better ourselves, but when does such individualization devolve and diffuse into vanity? Why do our needs to fuel our own desires and pleasures seem to end in a petty form of internalization that belies the rest of the populace, or even the world around us? And furthermore, understanding this much to be true, why do we still attempt to bolster such false notions of charity, agape, and even altruism, knowing that they are inherently against human nature? For instance: the poet may be inclined to produce work for his audience--his readership--in order to provide art and beauty to the world, but eventually such notions dissolve into an amalgam of confusions and inane conflations between his own desires and the raw necessity for his work, thus leading to him focusing nigh-purely on the gains and losses of what he produces, in regards to both his financial capacities and prowess, hence reducing his work to mere vanity. Or rather, more colloquially and recognizably: the politician may initially choose to procure certain benefits and rights for those he serves, but eventually his own desires for monetary gain and prowess end up outweighing his moral and ethical obligations to serve such people. Why are either of these normal conventions of human thinking, and how do they pertain to the mobility between classes? Why do we presuppose inherent "altruism" and "agape" within our populaces and cultures, especially those of the lower classes, when it seems evident that we are inherently immoral and self-serving creatures? Why do we consistently contradict ourselves? And why do we believe that such contradictions are related more directly related to human spirituality and greater forces, rather than our own inherent ignorance? How can we, as honest people, actualize our vain and petty desires, and then continue to presuppose some moral and sentient authority above the other carnal forces and animalization we attempt to deviate from? Are we honestly such narcissistic creatures that our necessity for an individual identity is ample justification for such cruelty, vanity, and internalization? I'd like to think we are not, but such notions seem childish in face of all the pessimism and frailty of our current human form. Why, why are humans such existentially flawed and contradictory creatures? TL;DR - OP is an emo faggot who thinks big words make him smart. Shit topic, ban the OP. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| what |
| cool |
Suiren- said: what Exactly, that's what I'm asking. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| Which one of those words is considered big? |
 |
| Woods, the dense black forest. The trunks of trees extending from the earth and their limbs forming a dense canopy up above. Breathing hard, exhales become mist from the cold night air in the forest. The cracking of branches is heard nearby. Footsteps, getting closer, leaves crunch underneath. Footsteps are following, quickly behind, beams of light striking nearby, illuminating in all directions. Blindness, footsteps continue, the cracking of leaves underneath do not stop. Suddenly, the leaves wet bring the ground closer, branches snag on loose clothing. Escape is becoming less real. Beams of light are pointed from above, footsteps slowly approach. Cold, wet ground, heavy breathing, the only comfort is the cool night breeze. Footsteps stop, beams of light hone in. Hands are felt and the dirts presence is replaced by cold air and hands, hands with a tight grip. Blackness engulfs the forest. Lights, from a house, a woman is crying, men are speaking, flashing blue and red lights. The men leave and the lights disappear. The woman's tears stop and a smile appears on her face. Her touch is soft and her shoulder, comforting. A warm bed, blankets, and a pillow. The sheets are cool, the bed soft, the door shuts with a click, and blackness engulfs the room. Blackness, the door creaks, the room appears, and with it, a man. His touch is not as soft, his hands rough, pain, tears, is all the man offers. His hands touch places they should not, pain comes from places that should not hurt. The man leaves, the door clicks shut. The window is open, outside is inviting, outside is an escape. The room fades to black. The sunlight streaks in through the window. A knock is heard at the door, the woman walks in with a bright smile on her face. She announces breakfast before gasping and covering her mouth with her hands in shock. That's right, exhaustion had overtook the need to bathe the night before. It had become common practice to cleanse after the man came but exhaustion had won. The woman was in shock from seeing the stains, the blood, the abused body before her. Her touch is comforting, her hands smooth and her words of encouragement soothing. She leaves the room. Thoughts of "escape is no longer needed", "she will take care of everything", "finally being safe" overtake all thoughts. However, they are interrupted when a crash is heard outside, yelling, a man and a woman are heard arguing. Another crash, a scream, the man's voice is harsh, and the woman lets out a scream as a loud bang erupts from nearby, and a thump is heard. The mans footsteps are heard outside the room, he opens the door. He is holding something black and L shaped in his hand. His face has a look of disgust. He lifts his hand with the object, the window is open, escape, outside is escape. Fear is felt, then a bang. Then blackness as a final thought "Escape is no longer real" comes to mind. Eyes open, the window appears in view, the moonlight illuminating the room. Pain in the right shoulder appears, blood has soaked the white shirt around the right shoulder. The floor is cold, and a few steps forward reveal the man lying on the ground surrounded by blood. The object that was once in his hand is now lying next to him. His face, is no longer human, it is ripped apart, the jaw unhinged and the left side of his skull ripped apart. Blood is everywhere, surrounding him in a pool of it. The door creaks open, outside in the hall there are legs peaking out from the woman and man's bedroom. The floorboards creak as the room gets closer, past the door the rest of the woman comes into view. Blood has soaked through her chest, and a pool also covers the area around her. Her face is frozen in a look of shock and fear. Vomit erupts and tears flow, blindly stumbling down the stairs the living room comes into view. The house phone is under the couch, where there once was a vase lies broken glass and flowers in a pool of water, pictures from the last family vacation that were once on the wall now lie on the ground, the frames are cracked. The phone makes 3 beeps as 911 appears on the screen. A dial tone then a woman is heard on the other end. Cries of woe, and unintelligible blabber is heard through sobbing. A single word help is all that is understood by the woman on the other line. Her words are soothing, she says to wait, that help will arrive. The couch is soft, and the womans words kind, flashing red and blue lights are seen in the window, sirens are wailing outside. A bang is heard at the door, the handle is turned and men in blue are on the other side. The woman on the phone says the men will take care of everything and hangs up. The men walk in, they look around and suddenly are holding the same things the man had been holding. One of them walk over and say comforting words. The other one goes upstairs. He yells to the man and he also heads upstairs. They come downstairs and their grip is tight. A white car comes into view and other men and women run in with bags. Another white car's doors open and a bed is inside. Vision is replaced by blackness. A bright white room, lights, unfamiliar bed sheets, beeping, and a stand with a teddy bear and balloons that say "get well". The window is in view, the sunlight is streaking in, sad thoughts come to mind. Tears roll, and pain in the right shoulder makes bandages come into view. The window is seen again. Outside is escape, what's happening now is hell, if only the window was open then maybe. Then a realization appears, the man and woman are dead, the room is unfamiliar, the hospital has replaced the house, and pain is all that is felt. Escape is no longer real, blackness engulfs the room for one final time, and a single long beep is heard before being cut off with the rest of the world. |
 |
Oxalias said: Ban the op pls The ban is evident. j0x said: well at least majority of people still have guilt and shame built in to them by nature, because humans are still called social creatures, but ye its rare to see selflessness thats why news and history glorifies heroes Is it because we find such excursions into the flaws of our form as humans too difficult to muster, or because we choose to ignore such frailty? ibear said: Which one of those words is considered big? Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty--or, well, rather it's not my prerogative to answer that question, considering I made the post. You'd have to inform me of your take on the matter. shotz_ said: this is why i hate rule 6 you guys happy to have your intellectual threads yet? Porn and perversion are interesting and intellectual subjects in their own right. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: TL;DR - OP is an emo faggot who thinks big words make him smart. Shit topic, ban the OP. Your name is enough to give people the same impression..:P OT: Thats a pretty nihilistic view.There are people out there who genuinely love what they do though granted there are few and far in between them. |
 |
laidellent said: Your name is enough to give people the same impression..:P Should have named myself "YandereTheFaggot" just to keep up with the standards regarding my character. OT: Thats a pretty nihilistic view.There are people out there who genuinely love what they do though granted there are few and far in between them. If we're being entirely realistic, aren't such notions of "loving what one does" nigh-analogous to selfishness, or at least self-serving motives? One may give back or contribute to a society, but less-so because they genuinely care about such a society or that around them, and more-so to further their own internal goals, so to speak. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| By rephrasing your conundrum from a different angle, I'll try to make sense of it for you: The scope of what someone tries to achieve narrows as idealism gives way to pragmatism. We all want to make the world a better place, but once we realise the nature of the situation and the relatively small effect we can really exercise on things, such grand aspirations often shrink down to simply making sure that there's going to be food on the table tomorrow. When you can only gauge another by their actions, it's easy to see vanity all around, but that doesn't always reflect the hearts and minds of the people performing such things. Many politicians, for example, in doing what they consider best for their people, will be seen as heartless monsters by others that don't know what they know. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
icirate said: The scope of what someone tries to achieve narrows as idealism gives way to pragmatism. It's truly relative pragmatism rather than actualized pragmatism, if we're being honest here. Actualized pragmatism would entail much more cruelty and senseless nihilism than anything else--it only becomes tangible and reasonable once internalized and treated with finesse and individualized care. We all want to make the world a better place, but once we realize the nature of the situation and the relatively small effect we can really exercise on things, such grand aspirations often shrink down to simply making sure that there's going to be food on the table tomorrow. To an extent, I'd agree, but I think humankind tends to deviate from making the world a better place, supplementing self-serving human privileges and goals above the betterment of the world at large. Once we slip into the same monotonous and comfortable loop of security and sanctity, it becomes ever-more-difficult to venture outside of such a spectrum, especially when the benefits do not directly impact one's own kind. We are, in this sense, all internalized racists (speciesists), or at least, racial narcissists. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
shotz_ said: YandereTheEmo said: unlike this thread which is only intellectual; the pretentious, full of shit kind of intellectual.Porn and perversion are interesting and intellectual subjects in their own right. Oh, this thread is both pretentious and full of shit, let's be honest, but it could divulge some interesting discussion. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YanderetheEmoFaggot said: Should have named myself "YandereTheFaggot" just to keep up with the standards regarding my character. Naah..this is more of an emo thread..the faggotry title has been already taken and there is too much competition for ya.Still it kinda suits ya..:P If we're being entirely realistic, aren't such notions of "loving what one does" nigh-analogous to selfishness, or at least self-serving motives? One may give back or contribute to a society, but less-so because they genuinely care about such a society or that around them, and more-so to further their own internal goals, so to speak. From that angle,the doctors and nurses who provide free medication to the people in those remote almost inhabitable areas out of their own free will,do it for their own self gratification?I don't really think so.There are people who left better career choices and indulged themselves in doing such "charity" work as you might call it. |
| |
j0x said: lets blame capitalism lol since its all about the winners gets it all while the loser gets nothing so people are inclined to be greedy and selfish bastards, resources like money are limited, most people want to be rich but only few can be rich so if there is a chance for them to be part of the 1% then they can really grab into it capitalism = social darwinism = survival of the fittest in a way There's always been a desire to be ahead, to have relative wealth. One's wealth and prowess, even in a non-capitalist society, only holds value relative to everyone else's, thus we cannot solely thrust the blame upon capitalist philosophy. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
laidellent said: From that angle,the doctors and nurses who provide free medication to the people in those remote almost inhabitable areas out of their own free will,do it for their own self gratification?I don't really think so.There are people who left better career choices and indulged themselves in doing such "charity" work as you might call it. Charity and altruism, in raw essence, imply a complete disconnect from one's desires for the sake of serving the greater good. Now, under such a presupposition, they are both unachievable. One cannot be giving back for the "greater good" without either serving their need to feel like their life provides worth to the world around them, or their need to sustain the "pack" of humankind. Under similar motives, until we were racially realigned to believe in ethnic and racial equity (as is ubiquitous nowadays), one's desire to "serve the greater good" would tend towards those in one's direct "pack," or in this case, one's race. shotz_ said: yeah, quite possibly. it could get derailed into a favorite pornstar discussion. Which could be quite enjoyable in its own right. j0x said: YandereTheEmo said: There's always been a desire to be ahead, to have relative wealth. One's wealth and prowess, even in a non-capitalist society, only holds value relative to everyone else's, thus we cannot solely thrust the blame upon capitalist philosophy. well thats true but capitalism mentality that most of the world have now seems to worsen greed and selfishness I think that it's less about it worsening such sinfulness and depravity, and more of it offering the capacity through liberty (which is a principle in the premise of capitalism and the free market) for individuals to indulge in such pleasures. If you understand what I'm getting at? |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
j0x said: YandereTheEmo said: There's always been a desire to be ahead, to have relative wealth. One's wealth and prowess, even in a non-capitalist society, only holds value relative to everyone else's, thus we cannot solely thrust the blame upon capitalist philosophy. well thats true but capitalism mentality that most of the world have now seems to worsen greed and selfishness That's a people problem, not a structure problem. If capitalism or communism worked perfectly, both would be fine for everyone. But they can't because people are not perfect. |
cause said: j0x said: well thats true but capitalism mentality that most of the world have now seems to worsen greed and selfishness That's a people problem, not a structure problem. If capitalism or communism worked perfectly, both would be fine for everyone. But they can't because people are not perfect. I tend to agree with such a principle. It's not the philosophy or the concepts that are damnable, vain, or narcissistic, but the people who design and appropriate them. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: Charity and altruism, in raw essence, imply a complete disconnect from one's desires for the sake of serving the greater good. Now, under such a presupposition, they are both unachievable. In a way I agree.So your point is people can't be "selfless" without having some other motive behind their actions?If you are trying to generalize,are you considering people of this era only or you are claiming it has always been like that because your post doesn't technically clarify it. One cannot be giving back for the "greater good" without either serving their need to feel like their life provides worth to the world around them, or their need to sustain the "pack" of humankind. Under similar motives, until we were racially realigned to believe in ethnic and racial equity (as is ubiquitous nowadays), one's desire to "serve the greater good" would tend towards those in one's direct "pack," or in this case, one's race. So the concept of "selflessness" is nothing but a facade for people to satisfy their own "selfish" goals ?"Charity" and "altruism" are nothing but mere words that oh so intelligently hide to (by your words): actualize our vain and petty desires, and then continue to presuppose some moral and sentient authority above the other carnal forces and animalization we attempt to deviate from? |
| |
laidellent said: In a way I agree.So your point is people can't be "selfless" without having some other motive behind their actions?If you are trying to generalize,are you considering people of this era only or you are claiming it has always been like that because your post doesn't technically clarify it. I tend to think that as we have expanded into the contemporary, we have attempted to obscure the carnal roots of our desires, the tangible deficit of our vanity, in broader concepts of sentience, spirituality, and morality. In this sense, we have always experienced such a dichotomy between our vanity and what we presuppose is "selflessness," however, such becomes more and more begrudgingly evident the further we remove ourselves from our principle desires, our tangible needs. So the concept of "selflessness" is nothing but a facade for people to satisfy their own "selfish" goals ?"Charity" and "altruism" are nothing but mere words that oh so intelligently hide to (by your words): actualize our vain and petty desires, and then continue to presuppose some moral and sentient authority above the other carnal forces and animalization we attempt to deviate from? In a way, yes. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| This depends on how you define success. I can't answer such an open-ended question. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: This depends on how you define success. I can't answer such an open-ended question. OT TL;DR Question: Why do we allow ourselves to slip into the notions that humankind is some elevated species with moral obligations and tact, when our actions can boil down to carnal desires and vanity above just as much as our fellow species? Why do we champion concepts like charity, love, peace, altruism, and the like, when all are merely forms of internalized selfishness? Why do we consistently try to hid behind our own sentience and alleged spirituality as if it justifies our cruelty and flaws, when we are just as animalistic as the rest of the world? Why do we commit to conflating serving humankind with serving the larger world? Are we really such narcissistic and vain creatures? |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| You know, it's fairly boring to live your life outside the food chain. Human kind, by all means and purposes, cheated nature, it's simple as that. Acting all high and mighty surely doesn't change it, but being facetious about it does distract us, in a way. I don't think vanity and self serving are direct causes for our behaviour (those of us who are normal), but rather after effects. I help someone cross the street, I don't think about the aftermath. I make someone smile just to make them smile. While it's true that afterwards, everything evolves, and we assign different labels of identification to those interactions, only to further explore their beginning, just so that we have a hint of their end. The argument could be made that memory acts as a reflex, making you make people smile, because it knows from past experiences that it felt good, but then we would have to delve into conditioning, which would stray a bit from the matter at hand. The point is, when stripped down from all the bullshit that we have constructed for us, just because we feel like it's fucking scary for afterlife to not exist, or for our lives to not have any meaning in the grand scheme of things, we still have the three main fuctions to live, like any other fucking organism in this world, and those are, of course, sleep, eat, reproduce. Of course we're animals. But people don't want that, do they? They want to be different, they want to be more. They want light to shine upon them, and only them. Center of attention, in a vast universe? What a childish belief. Counteracting that, each one of us created their own world inside their heads, in which they live in, based off of all the external information they received that appeased them. But at the core, we do still have to sleep, eat, and reproduce. So in our way of cheating nature, we actually cheated ourselves. Created everything around us to distract us from our condition that we really are just another notch in the bedpost, another customer waiting in line, another orange in the box. No, we're not better than nature, but we want to be. |
| "While you were busy minoring in gender studies and singing a capella at Sarah Lawrence, I was gaining root access to NSA servers. I was one click away from starting a second Iranian Revolution. The Internet - heard of it? - transfers half a petabyte of data a minute; do you have any idea how that happens? All those YouPorn ones and zeroes streaming directly to your shitty little smartphone day after day, every dipshit who shits his pants if he can't get the new dubstep Skrillex remix in under twelve seconds? It's not magic, it's talent and sweat. People like me ensure your packets get delivered unsniffed." |
YandereTheEmo said: geniobastardo said: This depends on how you define success. I can't answer such an open-ended question. OT TL;DR Question: Why do we allow ourselves to slip into the notions that humankind is some elevated species with moral obligations and tact, when our actions can boil down to carnal desires and vanity above just as much as our fellow species? Why do we champion concepts like charity, love, peace, altruism, and the like, when all are merely forms of internalized selfishness? Because no matter how selflessly someone acts, you'll never fail to lump their actions into the 'selfish' pile, you heartless bastard. Way to piss all over other people's occasional moments of actual charity and kind-heartedness. |
| Now you're wondering if there's white text in any of my other posts. Over there, I'm everywhere. I know that. |
| Theres a difference between speaking in an intelligent manner and conducting a unnecessary wall of large words for no reason other than to apear smart and add more text. It bothers me a lot when someone convolutes a simple idea into a large, poetic slew of pretentiousness. Anyways to answer: Humans feel the need to add purpose to their lives and to make themselves feel as if they are better people than they actually are. Recognising and accepting our inert carnal desires and animalistic tendencies is simply an unpleasant thing that many cannot handle, It disgusts them, makes them feel inferior, it shows the worst part of themselves which their arrogance wants to deny. Not like its a bad thing. Its better to attempt to better ourselves and chain our primal urges down than give in. If we give in we have no self control, at that point we are no longer better than mere animals. We have enough intelligence to comprehend this, and thats why we are above other animals. |
YandereTheEmo said: geniobastardo said: This depends on how you define success. I can't answer such an open-ended question. OT TL;DR Question: Why do we allow ourselves to slip into the notions that humankind is some elevated species with moral obligations and tact, when our actions can boil down to carnal desires and vanity above just as much as our fellow species? Why do we champion concepts like charity, love, peace, altruism, and the like, when all are merely forms of internalized selfishness? Why do we consistently try to hid behind our own sentience and alleged spirituality as if it justifies our cruelty and flaws, when we are just as animalistic as the rest of the world? Why do we commit to conflating serving humankind with serving the larger world? Are we really such narcissistic and vain creatures? True enough. But you know, I can use that to justify all the religions in the world. Actually, things aren't that 'simply complex'. When you instill morals of 'altruism', 'charity', 'love' and 'peace', you basically mask the 'carnal desires' of a human being. One when instilled with morality will act with his/her 'morals' in mind regardless of how he's inflating his bestial desires. Thus you have the perfect application of 'ignorance is bliss'. Still, if you want to dive in deeper and ask "Why do we even need morals then?"; I'm afraid that only leads us to nihilism. Wanna argue on that or not? |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
I wish I had more time to respond, but I think the answer to your question lies in human nature. In the end what we do only serves to please ourselves. The fact that we follow certain rules instead of just doing literally whatever we want is mainly because we can think ahead and it benefits us more to follow the rules. Would we do anything if it didn't make us personally happy? If eating didn't release "feel good" chemicals in our brain would we still do it? Sure, becoming a politician or artist or what have you feels good at first because we feel like we are making a difference, but that gets old. We want more, so we concern ourselves more with our immediate desires. I don't think true altruism exists, because everything we do benefits us in some way. Donating to charity makes us feel better about ourselves, jumping in front of a bus to save someone makes us feel like a hero, giving our jacket to a freezing child makes us feel better about ourselves etc. Anyways, I'm sure I just strung a bunch of tangential thoughts together in one almost completely incoherent paragraph, but that's the best I can do in the ten minutes I have right now. |
 |
geniobastardo said: Still, if you want to dive in deeper and ask "Why do we even need morals then?"; I'm afraid that only leads us to nihilism. Wanna argue on that or not? That would be fascinating, and I'd love if you'd offer something up in such a regard. icirate said: Because no matter how selflessly someone acts, you'll never fail to lump their actions into the 'selfish' pile, you heartless bastard. Way to piss all over other people's occasional moments of actual charity and kind-heartedness. I'm a heartless pig--oh, the irony! The great dramatic irony of my form! LionCake said: Theres a difference between speaking in an intelligent manner and conducting a unnecessary wall of large words for no reason other than to apear smart and add more text. It bothers me a lot when someone convolutes a simple idea into a large, poetic slew of pretentiousness. I don't know if one could really call this "conducting" (seems like an odd word here), and most-all the text is highly relevant to the topic at hand, although much of it is used for the sake of drilling in the point through analogous repetition. Humans feel the need to add purpose to their lives and to make themselves feel as if they are better people than they actually are. Addendum: Human's feel the need to add purpose to their lives in order to make themselves feel like humans, and themselves by extension, are better creatures, better animals, than they actually are. Recognising and accepting our inert carnal desires and animalistic tendencies is simply an unpleasant thing that many cannot handle, It disgusts them, makes them feel inferior, it shows the worst part of themselves which their arrogance wants to deny. It's unduly difficult to accept such animalistic fervor and carnal desires, but it seems odd that there is little-no evident recognition of it, especially when a vast swath of our day-to-day actions seem to encompass such carnality. Not like its a bad thing. Its better to attempt to better ourselves and chain our primal urges down than give in. Do we really chain our primal urges down, or are we simply avoiding the revelation that our actions, in essence, are primal? It seems to me that rather than nullifying or removing the stench of our human form, we've merely coated it in a bit of perfume. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
damastah said: +1Woods, the dense black forest. The trunks of trees extending from the earth and their limbs forming a dense canopy up above. Breathing hard, exhales become mist from the cold night air in the forest. The cracking of branches is heard nearby. Footsteps, getting closer, leaves crunch underneath. Footsteps are following, quickly behind, beams of light striking nearby, illuminating in all directions. Blindness, footsteps continue, the cracking of leaves underneath do not stop. Suddenly, the leaves wet bring the ground closer, branches snag on loose clothing. Escape is becoming less real. Beams of light are pointed from above, footsteps slowly approach. Cold, wet ground, heavy breathing, the only comfort is the cool night breeze. Footsteps stop, beams of light hone in. Hands are felt and the dirts presence is replaced by cold air and hands, hands with a tight grip. Blackness engulfs the forest. Lights, from a house, a woman is crying, men are speaking, flashing blue and red lights. The men leave and the lights disappear. The woman's tears stop and a smile appears on her face. Her touch is soft and her shoulder, comforting. A warm bed, blankets, and a pillow. The sheets are cool, the bed soft, the door shuts with a click, and blackness engulfs the room. Blackness, the door creaks, the room appears, and with it, a man. His touch is not as soft, his hands rough, pain, tears, is all the man offers. His hands touch places they should not, pain comes from places that should not hurt. The man leaves, the door clicks shut. The window is open, outside is inviting, outside is an escape. The room fades to black. The sunlight streaks in through the window. A knock is heard at the door, the woman walks in with a bright smile on her face. She announces breakfast before gasping and covering her mouth with her hands in shock. That's right, exhaustion had overtook the need to bathe the night before. It had become common practice to cleanse after the man came but exhaustion had won. The woman was in shock from seeing the stains, the blood, the abused body before her. Her touch is comforting, her hands smooth and her words of encouragement soothing. She leaves the room. Thoughts of "escape is no longer needed", "she will take care of everything", "finally being safe" overtake all thoughts. However, they are interrupted when a crash is heard outside, yelling, a man and a woman are heard arguing. Another crash, a scream, the man's voice is harsh, and the woman lets out a scream as a loud bang erupts from nearby, and a thump is heard. The mans footsteps are heard outside the room, he opens the door. He is holding something black and L shaped in his hand. His face has a look of disgust. He lifts his hand with the object, the window is open, escape, outside is escape. Fear is felt, then a bang. Then blackness as a final thought "Escape is no longer real" comes to mind. Eyes open, the window appears in view, the moonlight illuminating the room. Pain in the right shoulder appears, blood has soaked the white shirt around the right shoulder. The floor is cold, and a few steps forward reveal the man lying on the ground surrounded by blood. The object that was once in his hand is now lying next to him. His face, is no longer human, it is ripped apart, the jaw unhinged and the left side of his skull ripped apart. Blood is everywhere, surrounding him in a pool of it. The door creaks open, outside in the hall there are legs peaking out from the woman and man's bedroom. The floorboards creak as the room gets closer, past the door the rest of the woman comes into view. Blood has soaked through her chest, and a pool also covers the area around her. Her face is frozen in a look of shock and fear. Vomit erupts and tears flow, blindly stumbling down the stairs the living room comes into view. The house phone is under the couch, where there once was a vase lies broken glass and flowers in a pool of water, pictures from the last family vacation that were once on the wall now lie on the ground, the frames are cracked. The phone makes 3 beeps as 911 appears on the screen. A dial tone then a woman is heard on the other end. Cries of woe, and unintelligible blabber is heard through sobbing. A single word help is all that is understood by the woman on the other line. Her words are soothing, she says to wait, that help will arrive. The couch is soft, and the womans words kind, flashing red and blue lights are seen in the window, sirens are wailing outside. A bang is heard at the door, the handle is turned and men in blue are on the other side. The woman on the phone says the men will take care of everything and hangs up. The men walk in, they look around and suddenly are holding the same things the man had been holding. One of them walk over and say comforting words. The other one goes upstairs. He yells to the man and he also heads upstairs. They come downstairs and their grip is tight. A white car comes into view and other men and women run in with bags. Another white car's doors open and a bed is inside. Vision is replaced by blackness. A bright white room, lights, unfamiliar bed sheets, beeping, and a stand with a teddy bear and balloons that say "get well". The window is in view, the sunlight is streaking in, sad thoughts come to mind. Tears roll, and pain in the right shoulder makes bandages come into view. The window is seen again. Outside is escape, what's happening now is hell, if only the window was open then maybe. Then a realization appears, the man and woman are dead, the room is unfamiliar, the hospital has replaced the house, and pain is all that is felt. Escape is no longer real, blackness engulfs the room for one final time, and a single long beep is heard before being cut off with the rest of the world. Get out of here, Autocrat. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
YandereTheEmo said: Living through our desires is the totality of human experience, so it can hardly be a venture. There is nothing more mundane and average by definition, and your fascination with your desire to become fascinated is but a meta-narcissistic loop into the absurd.It's a fascinating venture of the human experience to live through our own desires and capacities to survive and thrive, YandereTheEmo said: For this purpose, the pronoun "it" would've sufficed. The only notion here is pretentiousness.but when do such notions YandereTheEmo said: You didn't describe a process, but a single action, so how can something dampen it's own effect?begin to dampen the effect they initially offered? YandereTheEmo said: It is odd that you see vanity in individual uniqueness...It's all well-and-good for us, as people, to attempt to better ourselves, but when does such individualization devolve and diffuse into vanity? YandereTheEmo said: There is nothing even conceivably petty about internalizing needs, which should have occurred before they were needs or desires in the first place.Why do our needs to fuel our own desires and pleasures seem to end in a petty form of internalization YandereTheEmo said: Belie what about the populace? How does an individual action contradict empirical phenomena?that belies the rest of the populace, or even the world around us? YandereTheEmo said: This is pure sophistry. You should use words that you understand.And furthermore, understanding this much to be true, YandereTheEmo said: This is so non-sequitur. All you did was ask a bunch of nonsensical questions and pretend like a solution was offered. What is human nature, and what makes human nature right, and what is against human nature wrong? Notwithstanding the complete lack of an argument made, this statement internally commits the naturalistic fallacy. (P.S. "Agape" LOL)why do we still attempt to bolster such false notions of charity, agape, and even altruism, knowing that they are inherently against human nature? YandereTheEmo said: Cool story bro.For instance: the poet may be inclined to produce work for his audience--his readership--in order to provide art and beauty to the world, but eventually such notions dissolve into an amalgam of confusions and inane conflations between his own desires and the raw necessity for his work, thus leading to him focusing nigh-purely on the gains and losses of what he produces, in regards to both his financial capacities and prowess, YandereTheEmo said: So the desire to express oneself for any other end is merely vain? Make one wonder why you are so vain...hence reducing his work to mere vanity. YandereTheEmo said: Another leading question--they are not.Why are either of these normal conventions of human thinking YandereTheEmo said: We presuppose "agape" probably because it is the role of women to give oral sex. LOL (Stop using words you don't understand.), and how do they pertain to the mobility between classes? Why do we presuppose inherent "altruism" and "agape" within our populaces and cultures, YandereTheEmo said: I'll answer this in another post, to clear up your confusion.especially those of the lower classes, when it seems evident that we are inherently immoral and self-serving creatures? YandereTheEmo said: Finally, something that makes sense.(snip) TL;DR - OP is an emo faggot who thinks big words make him smart. Shit topic, ban the OP. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
YandereTheEmo said: Your conclusion that we are inherently immoral comes directly from your perceived contradiction of human nature against what you perceive to be moral (no other reason was given). When you call these 'presuppositions' for what is inherently moral a "false notion", it must follow that human nature is inherently immoral is a false notion, since it would no longer be morally relevant whether human nature contradicts something that is not inherently moral.And furthermore, understanding this much to be true, why do we still attempt to bolster such false notions of charity, agape, and even altruism, knowing that they are inherently against human nature? ...snip... Why do we presuppose inherent "altruism" and "agape" within our populaces and cultures, especially those of the lower classes, when it seems evident that we are inherently immoral and self-serving creatures? Therefore, the way you posed your latter question necessarily contradicts the contents of the first question. If self-serving is equated to inherently immoral, then (ignoring egoism) the presupposition of altruism as moral is merely a tautology. If that is true, then the morality of altruism is not a "false notion". If the morality of altruism is a "false notion", then the morality of human nature or being self-serving is irrelevant. Hence, one or both of your questions are absolute nonsense. YandereTheEmo said: Why, OP? Why?Why do we consistently contradict ourselves? |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
| Welp, Katsucats already said everything. I'll just add: YandereTheEmo said: Why do we presuppose inherent "altruism" and "agape" within our populaces and cultures I don't think we do. If we did we wouldn't have laws or law enforcement. Katsucats said: We presuppose "agape" probably because it is the role of women to give oral sex. LOL (Stop using words you don't understand.) OP is using 'agape' in this sense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape |
on | Triple posting is a bit absurd, but I'll humor it. katsucats said: Living through our desires is the totality of human experience, so it can hardly be a venture. False. A venture, by nature, can simply refer to such a dangerous undertaking. Living to please only one's own desires, on a larger scale, creates an environment of selfishness and vanity that, in essence, produces a danger to the human form. One's neighbor becomes one's enemy, and one's friend is but a temporary ally. There is nothing more mundane and average by definition, and your fascination with your desire to become fascinated is but a meta-narcissistic loop into the absurd. That's a presupposition of truth, noting one's desires can be quite grandiose in nature. Let's not lie to ourselves here, and understand that desires have different stages of complexity and necessity. You have your initial "desires" which are more-or-less primal instincts to survive, and then you have your compounded desires that are of less necessity, but still are internalized as having due importance to one's own form. One's desire to eat is, from a rudimentary standpoint, a need. One's desire to own a porsche or go skydiving is not required, but merely "wanted" by the person in question. However, they will view such desires with as much due importance as their rudimentary needs if and when such needs are met. Hence, vanity ensues. For this purpose, the pronoun "it" would've sufficed. The only notion here is pretentiousness. I've never really understood why you tend towards being so uncivil and aggressive on forums. You have nothing to prove, nor any real enemies on the internet, and thus such aggression just seems petty. In this case, "it" would have been an oversimplification, and even if not seen as so, saying "such notions" is in no way "wrong." It is odd that you see vanity in individual uniqueness... To be frank, vanity operates under one's own individualized desires, so it is, in a sense, a form of uniqueness. There is nothing even conceivably petty about internalizing needs, which should have occurred before they were needs or desires in the first place. There is something entirely petty in belying such internalizations with muddled notions of upper-echelon sentience and compassion--elevations of the human existence--when in actuality we are purely primal creatures merely masking our impulses. This is pure sophistry. You should use words that you understand. We've discussed this before, but your tendency to use sophistry as a buzzword is daunting. You later reveal in your post that you misunderstood certain words I used, thus questioning your very interpretation of my post. This is so non-sequitur. All you did was ask a bunch of nonsensical questions and pretend like a solution was offered. Never once did I pretend that a solution was offered--I am, and have been, petitioning the casual discussion forum-goers to consider the contradiction of human elevation, and our inane vanity. Once again, your unnecessary aggression is daunting. Cool story bro. I'm glad your posts never devolve into shitposting, arrogance, or pointless one-liners. So the desire to express oneself for any other end is merely vain? Make one wonder why you are so vain... No, but the desire to express oneself in order to further one's prowess, position, or legacy while ostensibly operating under the premise that one's work is somehow equivocally serving society, acting as a due form of art, is vain. We presuppose "agape" probably because it is the role of women to give oral sex. LOL (Stop using words you don't understand.) Bato already noted the charlatanry here, but I would append onto such notions the fact that you've revealed a level of ineptitude in your understanding of my post. Supplementing arrogance in place of evident ignorance on a subject is never the correct way to argue, Kats. katsucats said: Your conclusion that we are inherently immoral comes directly from your perceived contradiction of human nature against what you perceive to be moral (no other reason was given). No, I don't perceive morality to be an objectively existing concept. I tend to think that even the conception of such false-constructs is evidence enough of the inane inflation and elevation of the human form above other animalistic creatures, when in reality we are very much the same. Once again, misinterpreting my post is not cause or substance for argument, thus would be argument from ignorance. Therefore, the way you posed your latter question necessarily contradicts the contents of the first question. If self-serving is equated to inherently immoral, then (ignoring egoism) the presupposition of altruism as moral is merely a tautology. We must remember, Kats, that "immorality" is not only non-conformance to standard morals (which are constructed), but the lack of morality in the first place. On both counts, my point still stands. Our self-serving notions contradict our own norms of morality, by supplanting altruism, charity, agape, care, love, compassion, etc... with vanity, cruelty, and the like, thus being immoral. Secondly, I tend to find that such morality is constructed to elevate our primal actions and decisions above animalism, and thus on this count, our vain actions are also inherently lacking of such morals. I've made this point three times now, but misinterpretation isn't proper argumentation. |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: It is impossible to qualify "only one's own desires" such that it differs from any other action, especially when you're making a point of egoism.katsucats said: False. A venture, by nature, can simply refer to such a dangerous undertaking. Living to please only one's own desires, on a larger scale, creates an environment of selfishness and vanity that, in essence, produces a danger to the human form. One's neighbor becomes one's enemy, and one's friend is but a temporary ally. Living through our desires is the totality of human experience, so it can hardly be a venture. YandereTheEmo said: Every statement is a presupposition of truth--this is so redundant that it doesn't even bear any value.[/quote]There is nothing more mundane and average by definition, and your fascination with your desire to become fascinated is but a meta-narcissistic loop into the absurd. That's a presupposition of truth, noting one's desires can be quite grandiose in nature. Let's not lie to ourselves here, and understand that desires have different stages of complexity and necessity. You have your initial "desires" which are more-or-less primal instincts to survive, and then you have your compounded desires that are of less necessity, but still are internalized as having due importance to one's own form. YandereTheEmo said: Vanity is subjective, and it is quite an extremist distortion of the concept to suggest that any pursuit that isn't basic is vane. It also belies an understanding of biological evolution, which is the basis of all of our traits, not just your arbitrarily determined "rudimentary" needs.One's desire to eat is, from a rudimentary standpoint, a need. One's desire to own a porsche or go skydiving is not required, but merely "wanted" by the person in question. However, they will view such desires with as much due importance as their rudimentary needs if and when such needs are met. Hence, vanity ensues. YandereTheEmo said: It quite frames an entity as an archetype presupposed to the notion of a pretentious idiot, which is also the notion of a pretentious idiot presupposed and projected onto the notion of a symbolic mental object representing the notion of a basic notion of an empirical objection; and the idea in itself is a notion of another notion.For this purpose, the pronoun "it" would've sufficed. The only notion here is pretentiousness. I've never really understood why you tend towards being so uncivil and aggressive on forums. You have nothing to prove, nor any real enemies on the internet, and thus such aggression just seems petty. In this case, "it" would have been an oversimplification, and even if not seen as so, saying "such notions" is in no way "wrong." YandereTheEmo said: If vanity is a form of uniqueness, then individual uniqueness cannot be vane. A thing cannot contain the set that contains it.It is odd that you see vanity in individual uniqueness... To be frank, vanity operates under one's own individualized desires, so it is, in a sense, a form of uniqueness. YandereTheEmo said: Is this religious?There is nothing even conceivably petty about internalizing needs, which should have occurred before they were needs or desires in the first place. There is something entirely petty in belying such internalizations with muddled notions of upper-echelon YandereTheEmo said: Since you don't believe in objective morality, then these "elevations" are merely your own opinion, which you also denounce? How does sentience and compassion contradict internalization? They are not even comparable categories.sentience and compassion--elevations of the human existence YandereTheEmo said: You cannot name "compound desires" as a separate category from primal desires, only to assert that compound desires are primal. Therein lies the crux of your contradiction.--when in actuality we are purely primal creatures merely masking our impulses. YandereTheEmo said: It's too bad that you find certain words that I use daunting. A "buzzword" presumes that the word lacks meaning--it does not. Using big words for no real purpose than to complicate one's own point to make it seem more impressive is ridiculous. If you think my misunderstanding of your use of "agape" invalidates my entire point, then that just shows your desperation.This is pure sophistry. You should use words that you understand. We've discussed this before, but your tendency to use sophistry as a buzzword is daunting. You later reveal in your post that you misunderstood certain words I used, thus questioning your very interpretation of my post. YandereTheEmo said: You intentionally removed the passage to which I quoted to obfuscate the context. Your use of the word "still" presumes that some previous point has been established, and your "such" refers to some previous idea, and "false notions" presume that some idea had been demonstrated false.This is so non-sequitur. All you did was ask a bunch of nonsensical questions and pretend like a solution was offered. Never once did I pretend that a solution was offered--YandereTheEmo said: The consideration of this so-called contradiction requires the acceptance of the values you've implied through your, apparently, rhetorical questions.I am, and have been, petitioning the casual discussion forum-goers to consider the contradiction of human elevation, and our inane vanity. YandereTheEmo said: Then stop being daunted.Once again, your unnecessary aggression is daunting. YandereTheEmo said: I find it sad that you find some unwarranted anecdotal cause and effect is sufficient evidence of the inevitability of "human nature". Cool story bro. I'm glad your posts never devolve into shitposting, arrogance, or pointless one-liners. YandereTheEmo said: Which is exactly what you are doing, if we accept your prior premise that we are "purely primal creatures masking our impulses". You are self-refuting.So the desire to express oneself for any other end is merely vain? Make one wonder why you are so vain... No, but the desire to express oneself in order to further one's prowess, position, or legacy while ostensibly operating under the premise that one's work is somehow equivocally serving society, acting as a due form of art, is vain. YandereTheEmo said: If referring you to the correct definition of the English word agape is being a charlatan, then it's unsurprising that you find empty rhetoric argumentatively apt.We presuppose "agape" probably because it is the role of women to give oral sex. LOL (Stop using words you don't understand.) Bato already noted the charlatanry here, but I would append onto such notions the fact that you've revealed a level of ineptitude in your understanding of my post. Supplementing arrogance in place of evident ignorance on a subject is never the correct way to argue, Kats. YandereTheEmo said: Once again, you don't need to type conception of the notion of such false-constructs, when just "false-constructs" mean exactly the same thing. You're not doing yourself nor anyone else any favors wasting people's time with redundant words.katsucats said: No, I don't perceive morality to be an objectively existing concept. I tend to think that even the conception of such false-constructsYour conclusion that we are inherently immoral comes directly from your perceived contradiction of human nature against what you perceive to be moral (no other reason was given). YandereTheEmo said: You are, on one hand denouncing objective morality, and on the other hand, stating some moral hierarchy of behaviors as a fact.is evidence enough of the inane inflation and elevation of the human form above other animalistic creatures YandereTheEmo said: Same as what?, when in reality we are very much the same. YandereTheEmo said: No, argument from ignorance is to say that something is true if we cannot know of it. Misinterpreting an argument is not an argument from ignorance. Nor am I even misinterpreting your post. You are just making cognitively dissonant contradictions without realizing it, despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you. Logic is objective, and the proof is in the pudding.Once again, misinterpreting my post is not cause or substance for argument, thus would be argument from ignorance. YandereTheEmo said: "Lack of morality" is meaningless on account that morality is constructed, unless you accept the construction of morality as real. Once again, you can't reject an idea, and then base another idea on top of its acceptance. It's self-contradictory.Therefore, the way you posed your latter question necessarily contradicts the contents of the first question. If self-serving is equated to inherently immoral, then (ignoring egoism) the presupposition of altruism as moral is merely a tautology. We must remember, Kats, that "immorality" is not only non-conformance to standard morals (which are constructed), but the lack of morality in the first place. YandereTheEmo said: This is in contradiction to multiple things you've said.On both counts, my point still stands. Our self-serving notions contradict our own norms of morality, by supplanting altruism, charity, agape, care, love, compassion, etc... with vanity, cruelty, and the like, thus being immoral. 1. If "immoral" is merely the lack of morality, then it can only be apathy of altrusm, charity, etc., and not vanity or cruelty, which imply non-conformity. 2. If "compound desires" are vain, then altruism, charity, etc., are vain. 3. If morality is not objective, then there is no significance in any of the things you're saying. The self-serving notions and the norms are both your own. YandereTheEmo said: This is repeating what you already said. That "morality is constructed to elevate..." is a claim. Where is the minor premise? You can't make a rational conclusion based off one claim. Your conclusion is non-sequitur. If morality elevates primal actions, then your so-called "vain actions" become, by definition, moral. Something cannot lack morality when it is defined as the reason for the construct of morality.Secondly, I tend to find that such morality is constructed to elevate our primal actions and decisions above animalism, and thus on this count, our vain actions are also inherently lacking of such morals. YandereTheEmo said: Claiming that any argument against your claims are misinterpretation isn't proper argument. It's just being juvenile. The only person you're fooling is yourself.I've made this point three times now, but misinterpretation isn't proper argumentation. |
| My subjective reviews: katsureview.wordpress.com THE CHAT CLUB. |
katsucats said: It is impossible to qualify "only one's own desires" such that it differs from any other action, especially when you're making a point of egoism. Correct, we don't have the agency to differentiate the intent of our actions from our necessary desires, however that does not void its ability to be a venture, nor does it contradict anything I've said thus far. My qualms are with the human need to elevate such animalistic traits above being animalistic. Every statement is a presupposition of truth False, but I understand the confusion here. What you stated prior was a presupposition of your perception as being truth--without reasoning to reinforce it (I assume you'll claim that this is hypocritical). Desires have varying capacities and levels of necessity based purely on the dichotomy between "wants" and "needs" which are both subsections of "desires," thus lumping them all into one category of mundaneness is to presuppose your categorical definition is truth, even when the evidence would stand to prove the contrary. Vanity is subjective, and it is quite an extremist distortion of the concept to suggest that any pursuit that isn't basic is vane. Vanity is both a form of narcissism and frailty, the likes of which are evident in elevating our desires to be above animalistic traits, when in reality they are just as primal, if not more-so. It also belies an understanding of biological evolution, which is the basis of all of our traits, not just your arbitrarily determined "rudimentary" needs. No, in no way does it belie our understanding of biological evolution, it merely notes that through the coupling of cultural and social evolution with our own sentience, we have masked our primal desires in concepts of our wants and needs being somehow "higher" than other species'. We have created a false dichotomy between humankind and other animals, as though we are moral, reasonable, and elevated creatures, who can expand past our desires and vanity--the likes of which would be evidently untrue if we actually chanced to delve into the root of our actions. Is this religious? No, carry on. Since you don't believe in objective morality, then these "elevations" are merely your own opinion, which you also denounce? These "elevations" exist because there is no objective morality, they are not contradicted by that fact. We assume as humans a form of moral justification, rooted in the notion that morality is infallibly and inalienably true, but such moral high ground crumbles when we realize that our own morality is rooted in pack-based survivalism, stemming from our very own carnal and primal needs in early human societies. Once again, I take issue with pretending we have some greater capacity outside of our animalistic traits and desires--which seems to be, in essence, an entirely vain elevation of the human form. You cannot name "compound desires" as a separate category from primal desires, only to assert that compound desires are primal. Therein lies the crux of your contradiction. Once again, the miscommunication is brutally obvious. Primal needs and primal wants are both categorical pieces of primal desires, the latter of which refers to the desires compounded upon our actual root "desire" to survive. It's too bad that you find certain words that I use daunting. It's not the words themselves, it's the arrogance being supplanted for meaning, next. A "buzzword" presumes that the word lacks meaning--it does not. A "buzzword" presumes that the way the word is being used lacks meaning--words have inherent meaning, but it becomes muddled, faded, and null in comparison to faulty usage. Saying something is a "buzzword" refers to the person using it, and how it is being used, not the word itself. Next: Using big words for no real purpose than to complicate one's own point to make it seem more impressive is ridiculous. First of all, there's no evidence to say that's been done here, and second of all, even if such were true, it would not make it sophistry. You've proven my use of the term "buzzword" at this point. In fact, the argument expounded upon this presupposition would be, technically speaking, considerable sophistry. If you think my misunderstanding of your use of "agape" invalidates my entire point, then that just shows your desperation. No, I never said that. However, I do think jumping-the-gun and presuming your opposition doesn't know what words mean, when in actuality you are the one at fault of ignorance, is reason to question what's been stated prior, and to evaluate how much of it was rooted in rudimentary misconceptions that you, yourself have treated as being the fault of my own. You intentionally removed the passage to which I quoted to obfuscate the context. No, I didn't, however you may continue to presume some kind of nonexistent "intent" in my actions, as you have done thus far. YandereTheEmo said: The consideration of this so-called contradiction requires the acceptance of the values you've implied through your, apparently, rhetorical questions.I am, and have been, petitioning the casual discussion forum-goers to consider the contradiction of human elevation, and our inane vanity. Yes, and that's why, in numerous posts, referencial evidence was offered. Your point? I find it sad that you find some unwarranted anecdotal cause and effect is sufficient evidence of the inevitability of "human nature". Anecdotal, evolutionary, empirical, and observational evidence have been offered. Continue the reduction, however, if you will. Which is exactly what you are doing, if we accept your prior premise that we are "purely primal creatures masking our impulses". You are self-refuting. Once again, evidence to the contrary hasn't been offered in refutation, merely critique of what has been provided. If referring you to the correct definition of the English word agape is being a charlatan, then it's unsurprising that you find empty rhetoric argumentatively apt. Unfortunately, I referenced this earlier but, it is charlatanry to presuppose some kind of authority (even going so far as to assert ignorance upon your opposition), when one, in themselves, is arguing from ignorance. If you are unsure of what a term means in the context of a discussion, your assumption should not immediately be that the person using such term is ignorant or incorrect, but rather that you have misinterpreted something. Arguments serve to offer a level of mutual gain, the likes of which dissolves when one presumes that they are inherently just and right in all situations. Once again, I can overlook your misconceptions here, but the fact that you tirelessly defend them reaffirms my point prior. Same as what? The very animalistic creatures and tendencies we arbitrarily elevate ourselves above. No, argument from ignorance is to say that something is true if we cannot know of it. Unfortunately, I would have stated "appeal to ignorance" or argumentum ad ignorantiam if that was what I was referring to. I was noting that you argued under the presupposition that your own ignorance of a fact, a term in this case, warranted inane criticisms and voiding of a discussion. "Lack of morality" is meaningless on account that morality is constructed, unless you accept the construction of morality as real. Once again, false, a construction can still exist without us accepting that it is objective or "real" outside of a collective human convention. I don't know why I need to keep clarifying this for you. This is in contradiction to multiple things you've said. No, it isn't, but continue. 1. If "immoral" is merely the lack of morality, then it can only be apathy of altrusm, charity, etc., and not vanity or cruelty, which imply non-conformity. 1. Immorality is both the lack of morality and the non-conformity to such morality, not "merely" one or the other. 2. Cruelty and vanity do not inherently imply non-conformity, and I'm not entirely sure where you found such a notion. 3. Even if they did imply non-conformity, and we presupposed that immorality was the lack of morality alone, that would not change the fact that they are non-conformist to our own conventions of what we find "just" and/or "right" based on arbitrary principles. I'm arguing contradictions both to our tangible world and our human form (our fabricated elevations). Something can both contradict what is real and what is constructed in the same frame. You have created your own contradiction here, even though I have pointed own the flaws in calling it a contradiction numerous times thus far. 2. If "compound desires" are vain, then altruism, charity, etc., are vain. Altruism and charity cannot exist as we define them, as such vanity and narcissism are covertly evident in someone's intents regarding such concepts. I've noted this multiple times now. You can't make a rational conclusion based off one claim. This is blatantly incorrect. One can make a rational conclusion off of a single claim, assuming such claim is substantiated. Your conclusion is non-sequitur. If morality elevates primal actions, then your so-called "vain actions" become, by definition, moral. Morality serves to mask primal actions, and elevate what we do purely on the basis of being human. Once again, the contradiction comes in that our actions themselves are rooted in primal desires, which inherently relate them to our own vanity. I should have separated this into two threads, because the coexistence of both arguing our actions go against our own defined and constructed concepts of right and wrong, along with claiming that such concepts are rudimentarily fabricated, has only served to confuse you. Something cannot lack morality when it is defined as the reason for the construct of morality. No, this is false, and I answered to this earlier. Claiming that any argument against your claims are misinterpretation isn't proper argument. Yes, and I've yet to do this. When you have quite blatantly misinterpreted points, I've referred to it and clarified the points themselves. Once again, it would do you well to not operate under the presupposition that your misunderstandings are justification for flawed arguments. However, quite a bit of the blame falls on me for confusing you in the first place. |
YaN333Aug 1, 2015 3:20 PM
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
| These niggaz be writing books again. Please stahp. razor39999 said: This topic is a good indicator of why philosophy ended up birthing science, but got left in the dust itself. Yes. And the modern day philosophers are orthodoxy-incarnate. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
geniobastardo said: These niggaz be writing books again. Please stahp. It's all for the betterment of mankind. Yes. And the modern day philosophers are orthodoxy-incarnate. How do you figure? |
| It's natural for a person to deny he's a failure as a human being. That's why he searches for somebody who is more miserable than himself. That's why so much animosity exists on the internet. Those who aren't able to find a more miserable person, turn to the internet and call other people losers, even though they've never met. Just to make themselves feel superior. isn't that pathetic? There's a sense of security that comes from speaking badly of someone else. But that isn't true salvation. — Tatsuhiro Satou YandereTheEmo said: The only thing more pathetic than quoting someone you know nothing about, is quoting yourself. |
YandereTheEmo said: geniobastardo said: These niggaz be writing books again. Please stahp. It's all for the betterment of mankind. That's a noble endeavor. Wish you Godspeed. How do you figure? The difference becomes quite obvious if you read the older philosophers. |
[i]"Yet each man kills the thing he loves, [/i]By each let this be heard, Some do it with a bitter look, Some with a flattering word, The coward does it with a kiss, The brave man with a sword!'' ~Oscar |
YandereTheEmo said: Why do we champion concepts like charity, love, peace, altruism, and the like, when all are merely forms of internalized selfishness? Those concepts are only victim to selfishness in the hands of people. Standing alone they protest the very desires we're ruled ruled by. I think that's one reason we champion such concepts because their existence defies our nature. While we might strive fruitlessly to achieve them, only to highlight our own selfish desires. That desire in the face of seemingly impossible odds also highlights our selflessness. The pride experienced is believing we're one step closer to actually being selfless while sadly we aren't. Regardless, ignoring intent, acts like love, charity, and peace help more than ourselves. |
 |
More topics from this board
» To all the cat lovers who don't own a cat, what's stopping you? (and cat haters who own a cat, what's wrong with you?)fleurbleue - Oct 29 |
24 |
by NostalgiaGoddess
»»
21 minutes ago |
|
» Any dog lovers on CD? And what's your favorite dog breed?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
32 |
by NostalgiaGoddess
»»
23 minutes ago |
|
» If you had a mansion, what would it look like?Cute_Marseille - Nov 2 |
28 |
by Gardevoir7
»»
39 minutes ago |
|
» Does being around ppl who has a lack of experience in life get boring?GoonLyfeVes - Nov 1 |
21 |
by Zayvex
»»
3 hours ago |
|
» How many new friends have you managed to make in your adult years? How?Rally- - Oct 29 |
20 |
by Drakath_V
»»
3 hours ago |