Posts by Elizabeth Ruiz65

rustymaker5 said:I don't know about that... 🙂 I mean, sure, if you're talking strictly about material stuff, maybe there's some truth there...
But when you consider a situation where you actually want to improve yourself—like, say, wanting to be a more tolerant person because you've realized you're being a bit of a jerk lately—that kind of desire doesn't necessarily lead to misery, does it? In fact, if anything, actually achieving that goal moves you away from the friction and toward something much more positive...

I touched on this at the start of the penultimate paragraph:

Desires can indeed lead to happiness, provided they are directed toward
something more lasting and non-material. Some people write poetry or short stories,
read books, paint, sing, engage in physical activities, learn,
study various subjects, or explore the spiritual side
of life and its purpose.

Getting rid of suffering?
Isn't that just another desire? Doesn't wanting to stop suffering imply a craving to end it?
What exactly drives a person along the "eightfold path" toward that specific goal—the hope that they might finally stop suffering?

There isn't a logical contradiction here. Think of the desire to be free from suffering as a boat
used to cross from one bank of a river (desire) to the other (freedom from
desire). If you discard the entire journey, keeping only the boat right before
you reach the far shore, you end up discarding the boat itself, too.

Sandra Parker3 said:It all comes down to our spirit being at the forefront of everything we do.

I feel the exact opposite way about that.
If you go chasing after every single whim, you’re just setting yourself up for a world of hurt.

From my perspective, and based on the general philosophy I live by, the goal isn't really about...
It isn't about stripping away every single desire you have; it’s more about narrowing their scope.
And the sheer absurdity that stems from them.

People these days just want everything at once—the latest iPhone, a brand new Ford, maybe a massive 110-inch plasma screen to stare at. Is that really what everyone is after?
Designer labels, mountains of cash spent on winter getaways, summer vacations... does anyone actually believe the hype?
Spring fever, autumn blues... It’s always the same cycle. Everyone is just chasing that fleeting sense of stardom, desperate to be famous, successful, or to finally have it all. Is anyone actually satisfied?
They’re being fed this idea that an endless pile of cash is the direct ticket to happiness. But what if all that wealth actually leads you to die a... well, you know.
Don't worry about it; the market will always find a way to plant new desires in your head and invent an entirely new set of needs.
Another newer phone, an even faster and sleeker Ford, an even larger plasma screen... what else is there?
The newer departments... Just more celebrations, more glamour, and even more "success."
Money and recognition. The market just traps people in this endless, self-perpetuating loop.
It’s never-ending.I need it now, and I need it right this second, because apparently my happiness depends entirely on getting exactly what I want the moment I want it.
My happiness is my life.It really comes down to the fact that in most cases...
Those aren't actually their own desires; they've been implanted by someone else.
How exactly do mass media and modern capitalist paradigms interact? Or rather, how would they shape our perception if we actually stopped to look at them?
It was all just a way to keep the capitalist machine running smoothly.Give me more, more, more—because that’s exactly what’s required.
Just my luck.It’s pretty much impossible to stay consistent all the time.
With growth like that, she’s bound to hit a wall eventually. And once she does, seeing as they haven't...
Is there any point in chasing happiness if we only look for it through one narrow lens? We really ought to start developing more diverse ways to find fulfillment rather than relying on just one thing.
Walmart runs and mindless shopping sprees? They usually just lead straight to frustration and misery.

A life built on those kinds of desires is practically being engineered into reality as we speak.
In accordance with the idiom. Work, Amazon, Walmart, die a.

And I don't even need to point out how many people are just driven by pure...
It starts with that sudden, frustrating inability to satisfy your own desires—or rather, the desires you think are yours.
It’s all being implanted by the mass media, acting as nothing more than a service to the market. What exactly is it they want?
Is there anything more exhausting than the desperate urge to be "cool"? You know the type—people who feel the need to wear the exact same outfits, haunt the same overpriced bars, and spend their entire paychecks at places like Walmart just to stay relevant. Why does everyone feel this constant pressure to follow the same tired script?
They’re playing by the exact same playbook as those people they worship like idols. Not happening.
The only real distinction between the first group and the latter is that the former can barely keep their heads above water financially.
It allows for the maintenance of existential conditions. And so, an individual...
Is it really worth suffering just because you’re chasing something that might not even be worth the effort?
Will she ever actually have it? Or is she just playing a part because that's what her social circle keeps telling her she needs to be?
Exactly that—she’s actually being denied the very thing that would have been good for her.
I need this.

So, I’ll say it again: if you actually want to find some lasting sense of happiness, at least from where I'm sitting...
Is the real answer just scaling back our own needs, desires, and cravings? What else is there?
Fewer desires mean less burnout. Why waste all that energy trying to chase every single whim?
Satisfy yourself. After all, when you aren't constantly running on empty, you actually have the energy and the will to get things done, don't you?
Maybe it’s time to finally turn toward other people, just for a change.
Maybe try actually getting to know yourself—and figuring out what you truly need, rather than just what you think you want.
While everyone else keeps insisting he needs it, he’s already decided what he wants for himself.
After a while, it starts repeating itself.Yeah, that’s exactly what I’ve been telling you.
Necessary.The continuous dominance of market hegemony is just so incredibly efficient at...
They keep telling people they’re free, as if that were somehow a reality when we're all just pretending to be equal in such massive numbers.
Is there anything more hollow than being held captive by your own desires, reaching a point where you can't even admit them to yourself?
Self-inflicted captivity.

Still, I think it’s worth pointing out just so there isn't any confusion:
Desires can actually lead to happiness, provided you direct them toward the right things.
Focus on something more lasting, something non-material. Some people write poetry or short stories,
they read books, paint, sing, stay active, learn,
study and research all sorts of things, or explore the spiritual side
of existence... Most of these pursuits don't require massive financial
outlays, so you aren't constantly facing the threat of going broke just to
satisfy your own impulses. Take someone whose passions involve
writing, for instance; if they lack a computer, finding a pen and paper is easy enough. For me,
whenever I feel that itch to fulfill a desire, I don't head
over to Walmart, instead I might just hit a nearby beach for a couple
hours of Yoga. It’s a practice I can return to whenever I want; no one can
strip it away from me, I don't owe anyone a dime for it, and it remains entirely independent of
whatever market supply and demand dictates. If people dedicated themselves
to more desires of this nature, wouldn't there be significantly less depression
and neuroticism out there?

To wrap this up: if you don't manage your desires in a
reasonable way, you're essentially inviting suffering. It's quite simple: in an era of
hyper-inflated desires manufactured by the market, it is impossible for the vast
majority of people to satisfy every single whim. Even if we assumed
it were possible right now, only a tiny fraction of the population could actually sustain
that lifestyle in the long run. And it is precisely that inability to reach a set
goal that breeds frustration—which is really just the first step toward suffering.

Because while it might seem to some that stripping away most desires leaves
nothing but a void, I personally believe true emptiness is much fuller than a false sense of
abundance.

Desire is just a roadmap leading straight to suffering. If we actually want to escape the pain, we have to let go of our desires entirely.

(c) Buddha

=)

darkviper27 said:I’d probably describe it through pure emotion... I guess I'd tell him: imagine yourself when you're pissed off, that's what red feels like—all aggressive and loud, just wanting to jump out and make a scene. When you're happy, it's blue; when you're calm, it's green, and so on. It likely won't work, but I suppose it's worth a shot, isn't it?

Isn't this just a purely ethnocentric perspective? That's how this part of the world generally
perceives red, for instance—as a symbol of aggression or hostility. That doesn't
mean red actually possesses any inherent qualities of that sort,
assuming it even has intrinsic properties to begin with.

Taylor Campbell4 said:It really should have been called Zuckerberg

At this point, we’re entering the territory where one might suggest he consult with
his parents, assuming that's even an option.

Taylor Campbell4 said:True—though I don't personally feel that philosophy is posing many relevant questions these days; at least, not in its main vein. Everything feels a bit hollow and disconnected from reality lately—both in the world at large and here on this forum. (And that’s the impression I get from Zuckerberg—not to deviate too far from the main point, though his delivery might suggest otherwise, which is just surface-level stuff. He’s certainly a phenomenon, but I wouldn't call him particularly positive.)

Žižek. Come on, is it really that difficult? =)

mistyscout2 said:His bio from some lecture a while back...
Just a little tangent here...
Or maybe not really, considering what we're actually talking about...

So, what were the takeaways? What was actually on the agenda, or what was being debated?

Since you’re going off on a tangent, you might as well go all the way. Or if we aren't going to count this
as a tangent, then there's really no reason not to just stick to the topic, right? =)

casualtiger2 said:Not exactly the "masses," but at least the middle class.
Just a few weeks ago, I was watching clips from a lecture by some philosopher from the North America—Zizic or someone like that?—who tours the world giving talks. His halls are packed because he’s lively and provocative.
I think everyday existential issues could actually gain a whole new dimension through philosophy (plus maybe some meditation). As for the masses—well, a crowd is a crowd. You can kind of "leverage" that herd mentality and urge to follow along to steer things in a certain direction—though, obviously, digging deeper into the big questions remains a solo journey.
Look at environmentalism today—that topic hits home even for the most oblivious people.
When the Green Party first showed up in Germany, everyone laughed at them; now they're sitting in Parliament, and have even held power.

Slavoj Žižek😉 Honestly, the guy is a phenomenon. He’s one of those rare individuals who can actually say he’s been analyzed, reviewed, and critiqued
while he’s still alive, to the same extent most people don't experience until they're
long gone. =)

granitetinker15 said:Stephen Hawking offered an interesting observation in his book "A Brief History of Time":

Until now, most scientists have been too preoccupied with developing new theories about what the universe is to even ask why it exists at all. On the other hand, philosophers—those whose actual job is to ask "why"—haven't been able to keep pace with scientific progress. Back in the eighteenth century, philosophers considered the entirety of human knowledge, including science, to be their domain, tackling questions such as whether the universe had a beginning. But during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science became far too specialized and mathematical for philosophers and anyone else outside of a tiny circle of experts. Philosophers narrowed their scope so much that Ludwig Wittgenstein, the most famous philosopher of the twentieth century, remarked: "The only remaining task for philosophy is the analysis of language." Quite a decline from the grand tradition of Aristotle to Kant...

Do you think philosophers are truly to blame for their shrinking scope because they couldn't keep up with science, or did science simply take over certain areas where it was more specialized and thus more successful?

Do you believe the scope of philosophy has actually narrowed?
What should modern philosophers actually be focusing on? 🙂

Modern philosophy finds an inexhaustible wellspring in questioning
social dynamics, whether on a micro scale or a global one, where the
expanding reach of globalization has opened up vast new horizons.
In analyzing pressing issues like abortion, GMO
food, or the ethics of human genetic enhancement... I see
a space where, for instance, analytic philosophy can find—and indeed does find—
common ground with the natural sciences through bioethics.

As for the claim that philosophy fails to keep up with the natural
sciences, shouldn't we ask if the natural sciences
can even offer meaningful insight into globalization, power structures,
the construction of social identities, and things of that nature?

So, I caught a glimpse of it yesterday, and honestly, I don't know—it’s like Resident Evil under a different name.
Even if there are a few interesting scenes scattered in there.


spoiler Warning

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

In one of those pivotal moments where the father finally confronts the reality of what happened to those two kids...
He finds out his wife is actually alive, just lying there, asleep in bed.
So, he’s all set to rush in and kiss her, completely oblivious to what she’s actually carrying.
A virus takes hold, and then he turns into a raving, mindless zombie himself.
And then a whole new wave of infections begins—it’s actually entirely possible.
You could interpret that as an attempt to demonize a fairy tale.
And her various takes on Sleeping Beauty/Trnoružika, which...
So the prince arrives, she wakes up from his kiss, and then they just carry on. Is that really all there is to it?
Live happily until the end of the line.

So, here’s that attempt at waking her up—you know, the whole "Sleeping Beauty" kiss routine.
He’s essentially the one responsible for that entire apocalyptic momentum the film carries later on, isn't he?
Sleeping Beauty gets slaughtered immediately after.
A kiss from an infected—one who has already transitioned into a full-blown zombie.
husband.

So, what can one actually read into a discourse like this?
The message is simple: trying to play the hero and save the damsel can end up being incredibly fatal.
Whether you're looking at it from the perspective of a beauty or a prince—though we don't even need to go there—it’s all the same.
What a waste for all those collateral victims left in the wake of everything.
...consecutive, and since there's absolutely no guarantee that anyone will actually come to save the prince.
And honestly, after that, he won't even need saving, will he?
It’s also highly questionable whether any kind of rescue operation would even be possible after that.
It’s possible.

So, one might eventually conclude that it's probably better to just let the princes be.
Sleep tight, beauty, and get back to work—while everyone else stays lost in their own imaginations.
To all those little beauties sitting around waiting for some prince to sweep them off their feet: you're looking for more than just a fairy tale.
I wouldn't say they should be wishing for him; rather, they should be wishing he never existed at all.
It’s just not going to happen. There are no rose-colored happy endings left in the 21st century.
If you're looking to actually survive, the best move is probably just to marry someone who doesn't give a damn about anything.
On the second, since it'll only end up hurting us anyway. When...
Think about it more carefully; the point aligns perfectly with modern promotion.
Capitalist paradigms and their relentless pursuit of maintaining the status quo.

Well, that's just how I see it.

Perhaps a premise worth using to expand on the question posed in
the headline:

Do people with high IQs tend toward narcissism, while those with lower IQs gravitate
toward worshipping them?

People have this innate drive to leave some kind of mark on
this world, and having a child is just one way to go about it. You could also
count the desire to live out one's own unfulfilled ambitions through
their offspring. It’s likely also because children are often perceived as
extensions of the self—a vessel through which a father's sense of "I" continues
to exist even after his own existence has ceased.
A third possibility is that some view fatherhood and upbringing as
a massive test of their own psychological and physical capabilities, an act that
serves as an answer to the question: "Am I actually capable of preparing
another human being for a functional life?"

The reasons are endless.

Anonymous said:True, 🙂 but I always find myself admiring people who actually have the guts to speak up when someone's being a nuisance. I personally don't have that kind of backbone yet. It really shouldn't be this hard, though—people ought to be able to tell when they're being an inconvenience without being told.

Most of the time, people actually do realize it, but they just don't choose to
back off, mostly because their ego won't let them allow their final impression
on someone else to be that of an annoyance.

So instead, they double down with even more intense behavior to try and prove
they're actually interesting, which usually ends up backfiring through a desperate
attempt at overcompensation, leaving them perceived as an even bigger nuisance
than they were initially. Just another pathology of human nature. =)

brisklynx13 said:I guess I'm lucky since I work at a desk and don't have to walk much. What's the issue here? Is it my spine or what? Looking for some comfort here.😍

Maybe the issue lies in how you define being "lucky." Too much sitting
behind a computer screen and not nearly enough physical activity.

People essentially invented the concept of "useless others" just so they could
label themselves as the useful elite.

Melissa Rivera5 said:Look, hate is just part of being human. I’m not out here suggesting we wipe out everyone who has undesirable traits—because, honestly, let's be real, nobody is perfect. I'm just wondering... what if we euthanized, or just didn't allow the birth of, people who will never have even a theoretical chance at contributing anything to society? If you actually care about the community, then every single member matters. But if someone is just draining resources without giving anything back, they're basically hurting the group. So, I guess their existence only makes sense from an individual standpoint, but it comes at the expense of everyone else.

You’d probably kill off Forrest Gump too. Shame on you.

Are you actually trying to justify that?
If it weren't for Marx, the social safety net wouldn't even exist. We'd still be living under pure exploitation. Sure, things are slightly better now, but we can really just credit technology—which, ironically, relies entirely on OIL!

Just who am I supposed to be justifying? Marx or today's corporate trade policies?

So, in short, you're advocating for injustice and the exploitation of the poor... wonderful.
And how would you react if I suggested that I'm personally advocating for using people like you as fuel to heat my apartment?

It’s clear you aren't exactly a genius; try reading the post again.

There's plenty of oil, as you love to point out. But that isn't the answer. The solution is to stop burning fossil fuels since they're heating up the planet, and for people to learn some modesty and live in harmony with nature. Nature is nature. We can't do anything to it. It always adapts. But that adaptation won't be particularly friendly to the degenerates, DJs, socialites, managers, and the rest of the human scum accustomed to luxury.

It is almost comical watching someone advocate for "returning to nature" while posting via
an internet connection. If you're such a devotee of the wild, why don't you go live among the Bantu
tribes in Botswana, for instance? Besides, society
is built upon an endless cycle of conflict—class, race, gender, religion,
nationality... it's absurd to reduce everything down to oil. Why were there so many conflicts during those thousands
of years before the first Industrial Revolution, back when there wasn't even a hint of oil
on the horizon?

Society is meaningless without the individual. If you extinguish the happiness of the person, you effectively strip society of its functionality.
People seem to operate under this delusion that corporations are self-sustaining ecosystems. They aren't. A corporation should exist solely to serve the individuals who actually drive its labor, or at the very least, to satisfy the greed of its owners. It isn't some sovereign entity that an individual is expected to serve—not if you value your time.

Marx argued something similar, based on his belief in dialectical materialism and the proletariat.
As the supposed drivers of change, when exactly will they realize just how massive this scale truly is?
Exploited by capitalists, yet time has shown—unfortunately—that no matter how much...
Sure, capitalism might exploit workers, but can't workers just exploit it back even harder?
Is there anything more exhausting than enduring constant exploitation?

What does "expanding into new markets" actually mean? It’s nothing more than capitalist jargon—just pouring empty air into a vacuum. Pure rhetoric. There is only one truth here: we are burning through an energy reserve that took millions of years to accumulate. We are living on credit. All these business buzzwords are just a collective exercise in self-delusion.

Expanding into new markets these days mostly just means opening up transnational corporations.
Is there anything more predictable than a massive corporation moving into developing nations just to exploit an uneducated workforce? It’s a tired pattern. They roll into these third and fourth-world countries, set up shop, and take advantage of people who haven't been given the tools to defend their own interests. Is it even surprising at this point?
Workforces are being engineered toward a state of ignorance regarding their own rights, all while...
So that any injustices inflicted upon the workforce become less obvious. It isn't happening.
I’m not exactly out here trying to justify the system; I’m just pointing out how things actually work.
Don't go getting carried away with those idealistic notions. You need to find some actual ground to stand on.
It’s about more than just flirting with the concepts of a democratic constitution.

If we run out of oil, this whole thing falls apart in a month.

Have you even heard about the natural gas they’re planning to pump through those Russian pipelines into the country?
The rest of Western Europe? They’re claiming there’s at least another 250 to 300 years of that left.
And what about the years ahead?

Lisa Long said:That system is pretty useless too. It might be better if nothing drove it at all.
But if you really want an answer: all of it—the influencers, the middle managers, the gold diggers, the stylists, the socialites, the DJs... it's all driven by NATO.

We aren't discussing what benefits an individual here; we are talking about what serves
society. Since our society is built on capitalism, anything that generates
capital is, by definition, not useless to it. From that perspective, people who contribute nothing to the system—and instead require support from
social and healthcare services rather than allowing the system to focus on
expanding new markets or exploiting local resources—are clearly "useless." Of course, this logic only makes sense to those dehumanized technocrats who view people as nothing more
than profit margins to be presented to the market, but they are the ones running the show today.

And it isn't just ExxonMobil; there is also the IMF, the IMF, the World Bank, and the G7... =)

Lisa Long said:To be specific: what does "benefit to society" even mean?
Strictly speaking, a human being isn't just a machine meant to function; we are living beings. Every living thing has a right to exist. Every human, especially. By simply existing, one fulfills their purpose. Besides, society spends far more money on trivialities—like weapons, marketing, fashion, cosmetics... all of which are useless. Are we going to start killing off makeup artists and influencers too?

So if everything you just
listed is useless, what exactly is driving the modern capitalist machine? 😉