Posts by mistyfox812

Richard Walker79, I gotta say, I think you're spot on. 🙂

jademarlin26 said:"Quotation:"

Richard Walker79 As stated by: Enough with the debate, everyone. It isn't leading anywhere; you're all just spinning your wheels.

The entire universe is spinning in circles; how can they possibly remain stationary?

"Quotation:"

Richard Walker79 As stated by: It matters little who is correct. A person is simply too small to know everything, nor can they ever hope to.

Show me that little man! 😉

Circles are unavoidable, man. They’re basically the blueprint for how we make sense of things.

When people drop lines like "nobody's right" or "there's no such thing as right or wrong," they're actually making a claim. They're saying it with the intention of being truthful—which means, in a weird way, they're trying to be right. So, it totally contradicts itself.
The second a person speaks (or even posts on a forum), there's this underlying drive to "be right." And honestly? They're right to have that drive. 🙂

But you gotta look at it differently: my "right" to be right is always bumping up against everyone else's "right" to be right. Saying "everyone is right" is actually a more accurate way to put it, 😁 because you can't even prove yourself wrong if you look at it that way.

So, I ended up returning this book after barely getting through twenty pages. It’s not even a "problem" with Habermas—it's me. I look at philosophy more like an erotic art form, the way Plato puts it. Basically, I go by how I feel. And honestly? This whole genetic engineering topic gives me such an emotional visceral reaction that I probably would've actually gotten sick if I'd forced myself to finish it. So yeah, I gave up.

Regarding that whole "human nature" vs. "history" debate: humans have a "natural history." Like, we aren't just some tabula rasa that somehow has to build ourselves from scratch without any help. We're conditioned beings, period. And a massive part of that conditioning is genetic. Our entire natural history—basically the story of our ancestors' erotic unions—shapes us in ways we can't even wrap our heads around.

From what I gathered while flipping through the pages, Habermas thinks that even with this genetic (read: erotic) conditioning, modern people can still hold onto their dignity as free individuals. See, we were all born out of something that no one had total control over—an erotic connection. My parents' union wasn't some calculated move designed to pick my specific future genes. In this day and age, most of us eventually accept that we're the product of our parents' romantic choices, and we grow out of those teenage delusions about being "swapped at birth"... and we find our dignity within that reality. (Maybe it's because it isn't just "human," but something more divine and erotic? If I'd actually had the willpower to read the whole thing, maybe I'd know what Habermas says about that.)

But, it seems to him that when this conditioning shifts from being "erotic" to being purely technical via genetic engineering, it changes everything regarding how we accept ourselves. Like, once you realize your genes were chosen consciously, intentionally, almost arbitrarily... well, that it's about eros rather than techne... that fundamentally alters how a human perceives themselves. He's worried that if we are literally "designed" based on someone else's values, we lose our humanity. We stop being free beings like we are now and start becoming something closer to slaves or robots.

Then again, maybe this is just some tiny, side note of the book. Since I didn't actually read it—just skimmed it—I might just be obsessing over one random paragraph that caught my eye. 😁

Just checking in to register this book... I skimmed the first few pages at the local library just to get a feel for the author's style—honestly, pretty readable so far. Once I dive a bit deeper, maybe I'll actually have something worth saying 😁.

swiftcobra15 said:😕😕 You can't seriously suggest that nationalists follow the categorical imperative, can you? 😕
Your attempt at relativizing this misses the entire point: the detachment (the liberation) from those "blood and soil" ties.
Of course, most people naturally gravitate toward those similar to them (in terms of interests, worldview, etc.),
but if a person is incapable of distancing themselves from their local community, they remain fundamentally unfree.

Honestly, I think you're still not free if you can't distance yourself from your local community, but also if you *can't* actually relate to it. It's easy to respect some abstract idea of "every single individual"—but try showing respect to your actual neighbor Mary when she's stuck in a tiny elevator smelling like fried onions. 😉

What I was trying to get at is this: some big "global identity"—even if it worked by trying to "distance itself from..." everything else—isn't actually a better fix than national identities. To me, a better way is just layering your identity with all these different things (which is totally natural, anyway). Like, I'm a Splitter, but also a Dalmatian, but also an American, but also a European, but also part of humanity, but also an Earthling, but also someone living in the solar system, and even part of the Cosmos... and a million other things. By doing that, my one specific "national" identity stops being the only thing that matters—yet, I don't have to ditch it either. And, more importantly, I share certain parts of my identity with almost everyone, without us all turning into some weird, uniform hive mind.

frozenotter232 said:That’s a fair question. I think the answer is "both," which points to a certain schizophrenia inherent in the cosmopolitan mindset. You have two conflicting attitudes clashing: on one hand, they recognize the importance of local cultural communities, but on the other, they insist on the unity of humanity and want to strip away any local cultural elements that get in the way of that unity. That first attitude shows a willingness to adapt and accept others for who they are, while the second reveals a missionary streak—not necessarily spreading their own culture because they think it's better, but rather trying to establish a single global culture or even a global state that exists mostly as an idea.

I’m also skeptical about this whole "citizen of the world" thing. I don't buy the idea that someone can feel truly at home everywhere. I honestly don't think it's possible to not feel like a stranger somewhere.

A quick side note:
The standard logic for building and maintaining identity in social and political spheres is basically: A is A because it isn't B. This works perfectly fine for something like national identity.
Globalization provides the material and technological foundation for a cosmopolitan or universal human identity. But there's a massive missing piece: the awareness of other beings that are equal to humans. You need that prerequisite for the logic of identity to function—you define who you are by distinguishing yourself from the "other." So, it looks like cosmopolitans won't truly find their footing until we actually run into intelligent aliens. 😁 Until then, the whole concept of cosmopolitanism is just floating in mid-air. 😢

I feel like the people calling themselves cosmopolitans are still stuck in that same old loop: A is A because it isn't B. In their heads, it's like: "I'm a cosmopolitan because I'm not a nationalist."

If you ask me, these cosmopolitans justify themselves way more often by saying, "Hey, I'm not a nationalist," rather than claiming they have some massive, universal love for everyone (including actual nationalists). Actually, I'm kinda worried that this "universal love" is usually reserved mostly for other cosmopolitans, while they just look down on nationalists. If that’s true, they aren't actually that different from nationalists, who also "love their own" (meaning people with the same identity) while looking down on everyone else.

Nicole Castillo11 said:The concept of cosmopolitanism first surfaced during the Hellenistic era of ancient philosophy, particularly within Stoicism. While most people back then dismissed anyone who wasn't Greek as a barbarian, the Stoics taught that a wise person is a "citizen of the world," viewing the entire planet as their true home. You see a similar line of reasoning in the teachings of Pythagoras from Elyria, the founder of skepticism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmopolitanism

So, what does it actually mean in practice for a wise person to call the whole world their home? Does it mean they’ll act like a local when visiting Rome, or try to force the rest of the world to be as advanced as Greece, or...?

Look, a philosopher doesn't have to be some global citizen, at least not in the sense of having zero connection to their own soil.
Think about one of the biggest moments in early philosophy—the death of Socrates. It was tied directly to him refusing to flee his city. He wasn't going anywhere because he was basically rooted there; he was part of that ground. He had his place, and his entire way of thinking was deeply tied to it.
Even Stoicism and those big ideas about cosmopolitanism didn't just pop out of thin air—they emerged during the era of the Roman "global village." Plus, if you look at history, we have specific eras like classic German idealism, French Enlightenment, or British empiricism... and honestly, those movements really do carry that German, French, or British flavor...
At the very least, a philosopher is bound to the language they use to express their thoughts. But it goes deeper than that—a philosopher is always in a dialogue with their surroundings. Their environment shapes them, even if—or especially if—they're fighting against it.
To me, it feels like any philosophy worth its salt tries to reach toward the Heavens (universal, cosmic, absolute, eternal, whatever), but it stays firmly planted in the Earth (meaning its own time, its own place, its own language, its own space, and yeah—even its own people).

I feel like there's something huge about how gold basically mimics the Sun—it’s got that same glow and color. (Besides, linking gold and silver as Sun-Moon isn't even that weird.)
And honestly, why is the Sun always our go-to metaphor for the ultimate Source... 🤔

The old-school way you write that word, heart (you still see it hanging on in words like heartfelt), actually keeps this link to the roots mid, middle, center.
Basically, the heart is the center (of a person).

Running a 3-3-3-1 formation here:

Heraclitus is guarding the goal (that's it, end of story)

Plato is our last man up in defense—once you get past him, there’s nothing left but the net.

Sitting right in front of him, we've got Wolfgang Pauli and Ludwig Wittgenstein—one is super solid and grounded, while the other just cuts through everything; nobody's getting past that duo.

Then the midfield trio: Hans-Georg Gadamer, David Bohm, and Karl Jaspers. They’re the engine room, connecting everyone perfectly. Great movement too—quick short passes, long balls, real penetration. Plus, they defend like crazy, keeping things clean. Gadamer is a bit classy but relentless, subtle yet everywhere at once. David Bohm is defensive perfection, pulling off those double-dialogue passes and unpredictable long balls. And Jaspers? He’s all over the pitch, great positioning, holds his ground well.

On the right wing, we have Martin Heidegger—totally elusive, plays right on the edge of a foul sometimes, and definitely makes some loud moves.😁

The central midfielder is Bela Hamvas: total playmaker, pure creativity.

On the left wing, Peter Sloterdijk—a real dribbler, can shoot from absolutely anywhere.

And the striker, obviously, Friedrich Nietzsche (he’s got a high football IQ, as Branimir Štulić would say😉). He's lethal with both feet, a ruthless finisher who scores, dribbles, and never misses when the defense slips up.

🙂

[edit: alright, making a few last-minute tweaks because if I'm gonna write nonsense, might as well make it fit my personal taste; swapped out some classics for my favorites: 👋 Wolfgang Pauli, David Bohm, Karl Jaspers, and Bela Hamvas (Max Scheler stays on the bench)😢]

Gary James88 said:Don't be afraid. The whole "tree falling in the woods" thing is settled. The outside world exists whether we acknowledge it or not.
Dr. House was a total hero tonight, proving once and for all that you can actually beat a hallucination. 👍

🤔 Man, I totally missed that...

Douglas Robinson said:What part of this isn't clicking?

Honestly, I don't get how someone who's blind is supposed to read a forum post all by themselves.

Douglas Robinson said:Why on earth would you think a blind person couldn't just hop onto this forum and read through this whole thread by themselves?

Wait, can someone please explain this to me...

Getting rid of the pain?
Is that even really a "desire"? I mean, doesn't it just go without saying that we want to stop hurting?
What on earth drives someone down that "eightfold path" toward wanting this—just so I can finally, actually, stop suffering?

ironmarlin1 said:Quincy:

The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors.

But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.

Quincy:

Simply because I find it foolish.

And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?

Well, it's right there in what you quoted—that's what made me jump in with my comment. 😉
So, basically:
...e.g., A tends to be red; O tends to be white or black; S tends to be yellow etc., Simner et al., 2005; Rich et al., 2005; Day, 2005...

ironmarlin1 said:Quincy:

The notion that a specific letter possesses some sort of inherent color strikes me as deeply essentialist—which is really just a fancy way of saying it’s metaphysical. It implies there’s this immutable "essence" to the letter A that somehow differs from the essence of B, and that this essence manifests itself through these various, involuntary colors.

But honestly, there isn't any rigorous argument to support the idea that letters A and B have an underlying "being." It all boils down to nothing more than following established rules for how we use them.

Quincy:

Simply because I find it foolish.

And why should that be the case? Personally, I believe positivism played a massive role in shaping the trajectory of analytic philosophy. Take Carnap, for instance; his work on the verifiability principle actually pushed scientific inquiry forward quite a bit. Even if I don't personally think the verifiability principle is correct, it acted as the necessary catalyst for Popper's principle of falsifiability to emerge. It holds historical weight, much like how nobody today fully adheres to Hegel's philosophy. Positivism is in the same boat. Should I claim Hegel's philosophy is foolish just because I don't find it particularly brilliant, if anything?

Look, if you don't think it's smart, then you think it's dumb. Period. And yeah, I think positivism is pretty foolish too (like I said before). As for why... man, I'll save that for another thread.
I never said *you* had to think it was stupid.

ironmarlin1 said:I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?

Well, saying a specific letter has some kind of inherent color feels totally essentialist—which basically means it's metaphysical. It's like there's this "essence" to the letter A that's different from the essence of the letter B, and that essence just shows up as these colors we can't help but see.

ironmarlin1 said:I'm not quite following—what part of that strikes you as metaphysical? And why use the term "positivism" in such a derogatory way?

Because I think it's a pretty stupid concept.

My very first thread.

hollowpilot9 said:The whole thing about manipulating people—you know, trying to shove someone else's thoughts into these little "personal" boxes I've built for them—just isn't my style. It's foreign to me. The real question here is, did I get you right? Are you actually done with all this constant debating with me? Are you ready—and capable—to just have a normal dialogue where we take turns picking the topics? Is that the plan?
If not, there's really no point in me being overly cautious, but look, you have to let me discuss electrons based on what modern science actually tells us. And suddenly, out of nowhere—well, we all know who "discovered" them—virtual electrons pop up as if they're some kind of electronic reality. Is discussing those kinds of phenomena while simultaneously talking about electron-positron pairs actually a different conversation than just treating electrons like little "balls" of matter?

First off, you're the one who cut off communication in the first place.
Honestly, I don't think a dialogue with you is even worth it, or even possible, and it's not because I can't keep up.
The way modern science talks about electrons and the way you talk about them? They aren't the same thing (and surprisingly, nobody else on these forums who actually knows their physics—and trust me, we've got plenty of smart people here—thinks they're the same either).
That last sentence in your post is the perfect example of why we can't get through to each other. If you had actually read (or if you'd even understood) that link you were reacting to, you wouldn't have been able to write something like that.
The only reason I even replied was because you threatened to harass me all over this board. If you're sticking to that threat, then fine, I'll take a real dialogue on whatever topic you want.
But if you're dropping the threats, then I've got nothing left to say to you.

I moved this post over from the "What is Quantum?" thread. Honestly, hollowpilot9 totally blanked on where I left my reply, and I wanted to make sure he could find that support post from Musliman.hr we did about a year ago.

Anonymous said:As we’ve discussed before, any attempt to bolster a prisoner's mental resilience relies on our ability to point them toward a future goal. In fact, almost all psychotherapeutic or mental health efforts aimed at those in camps can be summarized by Nietzschean wisdom:
'He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how.'
Woe to anyone who can no longer find meaning, purpose, or direction in their life—those who lack a reason to keep going. People without that internal anchor are lost very quickly. A common refrain from someone in that state was often: "I have nothing left to expect from life." And how do we respond to that?

We need a radical shift in how we approach the question of meaning. We have to teach people—especially those at their breaking point—that the real question isn't what we expect from life, but rather what life expects from us. Using a philosophical lens, you could call this a Copernican revolution: instead of asking what the meaning of life is, we must see ourselves as being questioned by life itself. Life poses questions to us every single day, every single moment, and we are expected to answer. Not through empty rhetoric or overthinking, but through our actions and our conduct. Ultimately, to live means to take responsibility for providing the right answers to life's demands, fulfilling the specific tasks required of every individual in every given moment.
That demand—and therefore the meaning of existence—varies from person to person and changes from moment to moment. You can't define a universal meaning for human life or provide a one-size-fits-all answer. Life, as we are viewing it here, isn't some vague abstraction; it is incredibly real and concrete, just as the tasks life sets before us are real and tangible.
This concrete reality brings with it a person's destiny, which is entirely unique and unrepeatable for everyone...

If you want to dive deeper into this, check out the book 🙂
One more thing;

"Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms—to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own path."

🙂