Posts by mistyfox812

Jonathan Brown6 said:Look, there's always a benefit, or there never is. If you think these questions are useless, then your whole life—all your thoughts, everything—is just pointless. But if you believe they matter because asking them helps you realize new things, then there’s value in every single thought you have.

I don't really get what you mean by "benefit," so I'm putting it back on you.

Jonathan Brown6 said:I mean, everyone knows what benefit means...

Using "everyone knows" might win you an election, but it's not exactly a philosophical argument.
Who is this "everyone"? Is it you? Or is it just some vague "they"? If you actually know, then just say it. 🙂

Jonathan Brown6 said:If you take it to the extreme, you'll end up thinking exactly how you phrased those questions, which would mean benefit doesn't exist.

I didn't say it doesn't exist, I'm just not sure if it does. I'm just asking—can we really judge everything based on whether it's "useful"? Like, look at you—you're alive. What's the "benefit" of that? 🙂
Everyone will tell you that you have an inalienable right to life, and I'm guessing you'd rather be alive than try anything else... So, is there any actual "benefit" there?
Don't you think we should probably question the idea of "benefit" instead of acting like it's just obvious?

Jonathan Brown6 said:What kind of thinking is that?

Philosophical. 😉

And I'll let William Gonzalez3 handle the rest, since those were his thoughts you were quoting anyway.
Personally, I'd say this whole split between theory and practice, or useful and useless, is just as shaky as that old divide between the spiritual and the material.

Jonathan Brown6 said:So what, philosophy is just supposed to be about pondering all this airy-fairy, spiritual stuff?

Just look at questions like these:
Is there even such a thing as anything non-material? Does material stuff even exist? Like, what actually *is* matter? Is it even a "thing"? And honestly, what's the point of even trying to split things into "spiritual" vs "material"? Does that distinction even matter at all?

Those could totally be considered philosophical questions. Now, try applying your own logic to them: are those questions about spiritual things or material things?

And also—do any of these questions actually have some kind of "usefulness"?

Then, maybe even more importantly than all that: what even is "usefulness"? And is there any actual point to having "usefulness" in the first place?

Nicole Miller37 said:If you really feel the need, just go with the flow. If not, just head out to Tibet, sit under a fig tree, and everything will be just fine in Canada.

Man, that actually cracked me up. Tibet, fig trees, Canada. 🙂 👍

As far as locals go, I think Veljačić didn't even make it to Tibet—he went to Sri Lanka instead and ended up living like a Buddhist monk. But honestly? You can totally live life on your own terms right here in the middle of the city... maybe even easier.

briskjackal5 said:And yeah, a real philosopher has to drink a lot. I've noticed that's one thing both students and professors have in common (with a few exceptions, obviously).

🙂 Well, if we're all playing philosopher here, let's get down to what actually matters—existence. Like, how should we actually *be* if we want to call ourselves philosophers? Does heavy drinking really fit into the essence of being a thinker? I mean, for a philosopher, clarity, taking responsibility for your actions, freedom... all that stuff doesn't exactly mesh well with "drinking a ton." So, by definition, a philosopher isn't really someone who just drinks constantly.😉
As they say, "let's stick to the facts." 😁

cosmicskipper55, these links aren't working at all.

cosmicskipper55 said:How much time have you guys actually spent dwelling on things like, I don't know, how the vibe of a movie theater affects the whole experience? Or even deeper stuff, like the philosophical side effects of being high—and whether it's even possible to really think about being in that state while you're actually in it? Basically, how much time do you spend thinking about those everyday things that shape our lives? You know, philosophically, aesthetically, emotionally... just in every way that matters.

I mean, obviously, big philosophical questions grow right out of everyday life. Real philosophy comes from living through things, not just some "academic" textbook stuff. Philosophy is supposed to be about the whole picture, right? That means we shouldn't leave out experiences like getting wasted or dealing with a crappy theater if they're part of what we're going through. (And I won't say "unfortunately" about that, because why would I? 😁 )
I'm guessing you're just using the theater and being high as examples, not saying that's all we should talk about? 🙂

relativity said:There it is. A textbook example where everyone just shouts their own version of the truth, and suddenly everyone’s both right and wrong at the same time. Like, what's even the point of any of this?

Look, not everyone is right and wrong simultaneously. It just feels that way to you because you aren't seeing the full picture. You know how they say all cows look black in the dark?
So, turn on a light. 😉

relativity said:Just try living like a regular person instead of acting like some deep-thinking philosopher. Honestly? I think that’s the secret right there.

1. But see, being a "regular person" actually means living like a philosopher. Which basically just means... living free.

2. "Philo-sophia" literally translates to the love of wisdom. Love. Like, actual love. It’s not just some nerdy mental exercise.

3. Seriously, go check out those excerpts from descartes' Meditations I posted in that other thread. You can't escape the conclusion: besides consciousness, nothing is certain. And hey, I didn't exactly hand myself my own consciousness.

quietdriver3 said:John Milius—man, I haven't seen him nail a movie since Conan...

Low point for sure—Red Dawn was just this weird Cold War snooze-fest he really didn't need to make.

The slump lasted maybe... 20 years? 😲

He’s got two new ones coming out soon... we'll see if he actually found his groove again.

🙂 Farewell to the King (1989) and Motorcycle Gang (1994) (TV) are absolute GEMS!
Look, I know, total hot take—IMDb averages are sitting at like 5.6/10 and 4.5/10. 😁 But honestly? Most people are usually wrong. 🙂

Flight of the Intruder (1991) is a fun watch, and even Red Dawn (1984) holds up okay, though maybe compared more to those old-school American war flicks.
Haven't checked out Rough Riders (1997) (TV) yet.

I mean, if you look at his earlier masterpieces,
Conan the Barbarian (1982), Big Wednesday (1978), The Wind and the Lion (1975), Dillinger (1973)
and even the writing side of things...
Apocalypse Now (1979), The Life and Times of Judge Roy Bean (1972), Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

you could say he kind of "lost it" for a while. But seriously, who can stay at that level forever? The guy's a G-E-N-I-U-S!

frozenangler9 said:I totally get it, I really do, but honestly? Most days I just don't have the mental stamina to sit there and be passive. 😁

But there's something else on my mind.

When you're just dying to see how things turn out, but you actually *do* have the power to step in and change the outcome—except you can't predict what that outcome will even look like because everything is so up in the air 😁... what do you do then?

Do you just sit tight and do nothing, or do you make a move?
And how do you even decide when to wait and when to jump in, especially when you can't see what's coming next?

Does that make more sense? Like, did I finally get my point across? 😉

It sounds like we're talking about a situation where there isn't some universal rulebook you can just follow. Every single time is different. It all comes down to your own gut instinct and judgment. And honestly, it feels like that judgment doesn't just come from your head, but from your whole being.

Even if this sounds super deep or maybe even a little cheesy, I still feel like there's no better way to look at it if you take it to heart (literally—your heart is your core):

"Examine every path with care and intention. Walk it as many times as you need to. Then, in the quiet of your own soul, ask yourself just one thing: Does this path have a heart? If it does, the path is worth taking; if it doesn't, it's a waste of time."

Castaneda, obviously.

Nancy Fowler61 said:Basically, this is my whole point:

That’s why I can’t stand those cheap tricks where they just exploit fear to manufacture some kind of *fake* horror or dread.

End of story.

There’s also this thing called fear of fear. Honestly, sometimes you just gotta let yourself get totally spooked to realize it isn't actually that big of a deal. 🙂

Jonathan Demme.
That masterpiece The Silence of the Lambs from '91? Absolute gold—super gripping, actually kind of witty.

But then man just goes straight to hell: Philadelphia, then Oprah, then that totally pointless Charade remake... honestly, in that lineup, even the mediocre The Manchurian Candidate feels like a massive step up.🙄

Look, the real headache kicks in when a law from a country we normally call home starts trashing our core values.
Maybe the Greeks weren't actually being stupid with that whole exile from the city thing. If you really sit down and think about it, what other choice is there besides just leaving?
Maybe try fighting to change the law? But if it was passed legally? While it’s still on the books, do you follow it or do you push back?

Will Kane said:Nobody's gonna mention how Lev Schreiber absolutely crushed his role in this movie.

For real, props to him. 👍

But seriously, did anyone else notice how much that mad scientist looks like our Secretary of State, the Sailor? If this were an American movie, everyone would be saying he’s basically doing a parody of him. Same facial expressions, the way he talks, everything...

Penis said:Basically, because he split the world into schein and sein, Nietzsche thinks Kant is just a Christian in disguise. Nietzsche was like:
'We tossed out the real world. So what’s left? An illusion? Nah, even the illusion is gone!'

I mean, Kant's 'Critique of Pure Reason' is pretty much just him setting the stage for his moral philosophy. People say he’s mostly just a moralist anyway.

Yeah, and it's not just Nietzsche—even Hegel argues that by keeping "things as they are" and "things as we see them" totally separate, Kant is basically leaving the door wide open for that endless searching he does... Even Kant himself admits that this whole setup is just what makes faith possible in the first place.

Plato and Aristotle both said that wonder is the starting point—the *arche*—of philosophy. And just like Fink explains so well in Introduction, it’s all about that sense of awe toward things we used to take for granted. It’s when those "obvious" truths suddenly get hit with a massive question mark. That kind of shock? That’s where philosophy begins.

So, what actually triggers this feeling? Honestly, even just looking at some grass can do it. Sometimes, when you really sit with yourself and let these things sink in, the stuff you thought was set in stone just... melts away. It dissolves. It vanishes.

So yeah, using grass as a way to kickstart "the beginning of philosophy" is definitely one way to look at it.

But here’s the big one—maybe the most important question: how are we actually defining this *arche*? Because it isn't just a starting line in terms of time; it’s also the principle itself. The core source.
Which leads us to this:

- Is wonder just a temporary spark that we’re supposed to outgrow once we reach "solid" knowledge (treating philosophy like some ultimate, untouchable science)?

- Or is wonder the constant, beating heart of philosophy—the actual source without which the whole thing wouldn't even exist?

If we go with the first option, then the grass—even if we count it as a valid "starting point"—has to be tossed aside once we find something more reliable and grounded.

But if we go with the second, then we’ve got a whole new problem: does that "stoner" vibe still actually amaze us? Or has it just become another habit, a way to lull ourselves back into a sleepy kind of familiarity?

Philosophy can only truly be that source (*arche*) as long as the wonder stays alive.

Penis said:Am I tripping, or is this actually where phenomenology and Husserl kicked off?

So, here’s a little something about Husserl—mostly just me rambling, but with a heavy dose of Thurnher mixed in.

So, Husserl was basically calling out this whole "naive objectivism" thing—you know, that huge assumption that we can just bypass all our own subjective, relative perspectives to grab at some ultimate, objective truth. It’s like we think we can just skip the middleman and get straight to the facts. But honestly? That whole mindset is pretty much baked into Western thought from the jump. You see it starting with Parmenid, then flowing right through Plato and everyone else, eventually becoming this massive cornerstone for modern science. It all really boils down to this rigid dichotomy... doxe It looks like you might have hit send a little too early! What's on your mind? I'm ready when you are. episteme...or just plain old thoughts and ideas. Here’s what was being said: episteme It’s like... it just strips everything away and reveals what's actually there deep down inside her. One single, raw, honest truth. Doxa Man, we’re constantly bumping into it every single day. It's right there, staring us in the face, but it's all just... subjective. Like, it's nothing more than an illusion—this whole world of pure relativity that we're just stuck living in. I'm seriously losing my mind over this. Honestly, I can't even deal right now. Everything feels like such a mess. It’s gotta happen—you just have to transcend toward what's actually true and one single, unified thing.

This whole idea that our daily reality is just some big illusion? Honestly, it’s the same old story whether you're talking to our local "scientists"—who try to transcend it all by burying everything in math equations and subatomic particles—or the local "spiritual gurus" who think they can transcend it through some wild meditative ecstasy or higher states of consciousness. At the end of the day, both groups are basically chasing the exact same thing: they just want to prove that what *they* know is the ultimate truth. epistemeI mean, let's be real—it’s way more than just some random guy's opinion. It’s actually legit. doxa.

So, basically, Husserl was totally clashing with all that scientific objectivism and positivism stuff, mostly because of the era he was living in and where he was based. The whole core idea behind positivism is this rigid dogma—that there’s only one single, uniform reality out there, and the only way to actually get to it is through one specific scientific method. Since physics had become such a massive success, everyone just started trying to force that same exact template onto every other field of study. It was everywhere.
Look, Husserl’s whole big idea is this: we can't just look at "reality" as some single, one-size-fits-all thing. It’s not that simple. Reality isn't just one smooth, uniform blob. It actually breaks down into a massive pile of different kinds of existence—different layers or "regions" that all have their own unique structures you can't just swap out. Every single one of those regions comes with its own specific way of looking at things, a certain mindset where it finally clicks. Phenomenology isn't like phenomenalism, where they just treat everything as these generic "appearances in the mind." Nah, phenomenology treats every phenomenon as its own damn thing, tied specifically to its own region of being and its own unique perspective.

So, this is where Husserl’s whole thing about intentionality kicks in. It’s huge. Basically, he’s saying you can't even wrap your head around the idea of consciousness just existing on its own—it’s always, you know, consciousness *of* something. It's like, there's no such thing as a thought that isn't directed at something else. It's just how it works. Focusing on something... that's basically the core of consciousness right there. And it goes both ways, honestly. Anything—whether you call it an object, a thing, or just some random stuff—only really enters our awareness because we’re aiming at it. Like, according to Husserl, "realities" only exist in relation to how our consciousness reaches out to them. Now, if you ask an objectivist, they’ll tell you that true reality is only what exists totally independent of us, just sitting there "in itself." But for Husserl? That kind of reality is basically useless to us. It’s totally inaccessible. The reality we actually deal with is always reality-*for-us*—it’s shaped by our specific perspective and the way our consciousness intends things. We like to pretend there's some magic method that lets us touch the "thing-in-itself" without any of our own subjective baggage getting in the way, but that’s just a total illusion. Every single method we use is driven by our own intentions. So, intentionality is baked right into the method itself. No matter what tool you use to look at the world, what you find is always going to be relative to the assumptions built into that tool.

But man, that whole famous Parmenid distinction? It’s just straight-up drowning right now. doxa I'm sorry, I think you might have hit send too early! What was on your mind? epistemePhenomenology isn't just stuck looking at life as some distorted mess or a bunch of fake appearances hiding the "real" stuff anymore. It’s moved past that. Now, we're talking about what Husserl calls the rehabilitation of doxa. Basically, giving opinion and belief some actual credit again.

Look, all experienced realities are built on sensory data—like, how much consciousness can soak up—but you can't just look at raw data and claim you understand the experience. You’ve gotta factor in the spontaneity of consciousness too. That active, creative spark that comes from intentionality. Every single thing we know through experience isn't just a pile of data points; it's also (and you can't even separate them) the interpretation of those points.

And these whole ideas of 'consciousness' or 'subjects'? They're always already wrapped up in cultural and linguistic frameworks. A person is basically caught in them from the jump; you're always already growing inside them. These 'lifeworlds' are the primary builders of meaning. They give us this pre-packaged sense of purpose or direction before we even realize it.

Definitely worth checking out those lectures on phenomenology by Flemming, it'll help clear things up.

The core ethical rule, at least from where I'm standing—and look, I know I’m being a little vague here, but if you get it, you get it—is just letting everything be what it actually is (in its absolute best form). But honestly? That whole idea only matters if there's actually something real to begin with.
If what we're looking at isn't even real, but just some kind of illusion, then ethics doesn't even enter the conversation. At that point, the world is just my own personal art project, and whatever I do is totally justified.

I mean, obviously, if this "Other" person has absolutely nothing in common with me, then we're basically living in two different universes. In that case, why even bother talking about ethics?

Like I've been trying to explain for ages—and it’s such a simple concept, really—you can't understand anything by just looking at one side, like pure sameness. It’s only through the tension between identity and difference, between what’s the same and what’s unique, that we can actually make sense of anything.

Everything we can actually know or experience is just a phenomenon. Like, "being" really just boils down to "being perceived"—showing up in someone's perception or consciousness.

That’s basically phenomenalism (think George Berkeley style), and while Immanuel Kant gets pretty close to that, he just can't settle for it. Even though he admits we can't know anything beyond appearances, Kant insists that these "appearances" have to be understood as "appearances *of* something." He uses this boundary concept called the "thing-in-itself." It’s this idea of an unknown "something" (X) that you can't disprove, but you also can't define through thought alone.

So why even bother with this "thing-in-itself"? Why not just stick with phenomenalism and call it a day?

It feels like Kant realizes that if you go full phenomenalism, you totally wreck the possibility of ethics.

Let me try to explain how I see it using a super simple—maybe even cheesy—example. Say someone says something to me, like someone on a forum gives my writing a compliment or some criticism. I perceive it, process it, interpret it... whatever. From that standpoint, it's strictly just a phenomenon to me (or to my "consciousness").

If I believe there’s an actual person behind those words, then asking "did I perceive this correctly?" actually makes sense. And—assuming we have free will—it might lead me to try harder to understand or perceive that person better (someone who truly exists and has their own life, even when I'm not looking at them).

But if I reject the idea that this person exists independently of my own observation, then asking "did I get this right?" becomes totally pointless. There’s nothing else besides that perception (the appearance in my consciousness). At that point, you just toss all skeptical doubts out the window because they're irrelevant. If everything is just the Matrix, then questioning the Matrix vs. reality is a moot point—the Matrix *is* the only reality. There's no "Truth" hiding behind the code.
It gives me this weird sense of certainty—it's impossible for me to have misunderstood what that other person meant, because that other person doesn't even exist outside of my own understanding of them! It's just me and the things appearing to me. There's no other being out there whose existence is anything like mine.

From that second perspective, you can't build an ethical system. At least, you definitely can't build a Kantian ethics based on showing equal respect to other beings who are free and conscious just like me.

If we go with that Kantian definition—you know, not the Platonic kind where things just "exist" in their pure state—then it feels like any positive claim we make about the "thing-in-itself" is basically doomed to fail. We’re stuck with that old Neti Neti vibe, just saying "not this, not that." Don't you think?
But does that actually drag us straight into phenomenalism? Like, if we can't even say anything coherent about the "thing-in-itself," do we even need to assume it exists at all?
I don't think so, personally. I feel like you have to assume there's some source for our knowledge, otherwise you end up in that weird solipsistic rabbit hole where you're just telling yourself "the world is an illusion I created." That's a dark place to go.
So, if I were brave enough to take a shot at defining the "thing-in-itself" here, I'd say it's that part of reality that stays unconscious to us—the actual engine behind consciousness, the objects we perceive, and the whole way everything clicks together in our minds.

swiftcobra15 said:When I say truth is out of reach—at least in this context—what I mean is that it’s basically UNSPEAKABLE. But look, we’re social creatures (or just generic beings, whatever), so we have to communicate using language as our main tool just to understand each other, even if we don't actually agree.

The majority opinion is pretty much just as incapable of grasping the absolute truth as a minority view is, but it’s still everything when it comes to how society functions.
We can sit here today and claim Socrates was right (mostly because we’ve formed a new consensus), but back then, the majority opinion—not necessarily by headcount, but by influence—sent him to his death.

So, yeah, speech is super meaningful, but it isn't really about chasing down "The Truth" (even if some people act like it is); it's more about finding common ground.

And honestly? The "owners" of truth (think the Inquisition, Joseph Stalin, or Adolf Hitler) have caused way more damage than the "ignorant" ones ever could. That’s why anyone claiming to "possess" the truth is infinitely more dangerous than someone who's just lost or still searching.😉

Obviously, you can't actually "own" the truth.
But I still stand by the idea that one statement can be "truer" than another, even if none of them represent the "whole truth," an "eternal truth," or some "absolute truth."
The measure of how "true" something is isn't just some random guess; it’s somehow baked into the very nature of things, whatever "nature" or "reality" might actually be.