Posts by ruggedraven36

Volver

Harold Doyle3

Joseph Murphy10 said:Like Sigmund is to Neven Budak,
Neo is to Gabriella Perisic running Fifth Day,
Volver is to Milani Vuković Runjić
Anonymous is to Aleksandra Musić
Walnut is to Peter Mitrikeska
Jednostavka is like that rector Boras Nobody
I can't picture anyone here as Ian Bobic.

Damir Boras is older and uglier than I am.

Olivia Smith2 said:It usually happens right when you stop trying so hard, doesn't it?😁

I'm not even trying—this was just an experiment, really. I'm not out here picturing myself getting old.

Olivia Smith2 said:Sandra Murphy33 looks just like Cher. Great figure—even after all these years.
My moderator is my absolute Tina Turner. You can practically see the energy radiating off her when she’s fired up.

I keep wondering about the older folks—how different would being a philosopher be? Just enough flair, maybe—with those little quotation marks included.

I’m the exact opposite. No matter how hard I try, I just can't see anyone as old.

A fact is just the relationship between things that actually holds up under scrutiny when you're looking for the truth.

Harold Doyle3 said:...says the human-centric egoist.☕

Spot on.

Harold Doyle3 said:Objectivity.

The guy’s got plenty of both—objectivity and subjectivity, if you can even call it that.

Mark Torres14 said:Isn't that just pure philosophical anthropocentrism?

What's wrong with being an anthropocentrist? I am one—and I say that with zero apologies.

Sorry for veering off track—completely blanked on the fact that this isn't a deep dive into what actually makes a person tick.

But then again, maybe that's the only question in modern philosophy that actually matters.

Nietzsche argues that even the Sun possesses a sense of self. You can see it right away in the opening line of his book *Thus Spoke Zarathustra*: "Great star! What would your happiness be if there were not those whom you illuminate?"

I’ve actually got a broader definition for this.

A human being is just a creature that’s self-aware in a world that stares right back at them.

Sandra Murphy33 said:But who is this "self-awareness"?

And what exactly does self-awareness even mean?

It's just consciousness being aware of itself.

It’s not even a hard question to answer. Being human is just self-awareness.

Harold Doyle3 said:Yeah, I actually went back and forth on this exact point with Sigmund (by the way, where is he? I hope he's doing alright; if he’s just taking a break from posting but still lurking, well, cheers to you, Sigmund!)

That whole process of being turning into nothingness? It's just shifting from hollow to empty.

So, what’s your take on the difference between who you are right now and who you were three days ago?

Are you any "less" you if, heaven forbid, you lose an arm in an accident? Or if you just happen to forget an experience?

Not quite. A fight and nothingness might feel similar, sure, but they're fundamentally different things. You can't really claim "hollow" and "empty" are opposites—they aren't. With a battle versus nothingness, you've got a true contradiction on your hands; with hollow versus empty, you don't.

Harold Doyle3 said:Is pure me really any different from pure garbage?

Nope. Pure being is immediate indeterminacy—it's raw. But a "pure self"? That's just pure unity reflecting on itself. It isn't immediate; it happens because it strips away all specific content and definition. We're talking about pure self-awareness here, not just the blunt fact of existence.

Harold Doyle3 said:If what stays the same is the essence... then what changes is just the byproduct, right?

I have no idea what you're even asking me.

Harold Doyle3 said:Is the "you" sitting there right now exactly the same person who was here, say, three days ago... or have you changed?

It's both—simple as that. If I didn't stay fundamentally the same, I wouldn't be able to grow at all. Otherwise, it wouldn't even count as my change.

I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve dropped a clumsy phrase on this forum, only to catch it later—usually, I just stay quiet and hope nobody else notices my slip-up. Case in point: I just used the expression "apply dialectics." It’s nonsense. You don't "apply" dialectics—that's not how it works. Dialectics teaches us that the method is inseparable from the substance itself, not some external tool you just slap onto a subject from the outside.

Harold Doyle3 said:Dialectics!

I figured you'd jump on that. Just look back at my last post—it’s pretty obvious I was using dialectics there.