labellina said:It really depends on what you’re trying to forgive. If we’re talking about hatred, that’s just as intense an emotion as love is, —and it is, so asking someone to just switch it off is like asking them to consciously decide to fall in love on command.
And honestly, what’s the harm in just letting it go? There's a certain kind of holy forgetting that lets you just... move the hell on 😬 and keep living your life.
See, I don't think love is strictly an emotion. It might show up through our feelings, sure, but it’s something deeper than that. Love and being "in love" aren't even the same thing.
As for the rest of this topic, I think I'll pass on writing too much about it. I don't want people thinking I'm some deep philosopher when I'm really just rambling along.😁 😉.
I’ve always really loved how Erich Fromm laid everything out in "to have or to be." It’s such a fantastic book, yet he writes in this relatively straightforward way, so you don't feel like you need some fancy philosophy degree or a deep background in classical philology just to wrap your head around what he's saying 🙂.
Brandon Martin7 said:Did you just invent hot water? It’s the same old tired tropes that have been around for centuries, from basic romance to everything else. There's nothing new under the sun in the West.
I mean, honestly, he’s not wrong... nothing really new there...
To put it more simply, we really need to draw a line between a symbol used as a literary device and a symbol acting as a sign—like you’d see in structuralism or just general linguistics.
It brings us right back to that nagging question: how can we use the exact same word for two things that are so fundamentally different? Is it just homonymy? Sure, maybe, but I suspect there’s something much deeper going on under the surface. If we take that symbol from Fink's sentence—the one that acts as a bridge between play as a symbol of the world and reality itself, which is pretty obvious if you think about it—and compare it to a symbol treated as an arbitrary category, what actually connects them? Nowadays, you hear people say "this is a symbol for that" all the time, but does a totally abstract symbol share anything at all with the thing it represents? I mean, once a symbol becomes completely detached from its content—basically "abstracting" away from its origins—it moves past pictograms, through ideograms and logograms, until it hits pure abstraction. A metaphoric symbol always carries a little piece of its subject within it, but by the time you get to an abstract symbol, it’s been stripped so bare that finding a common thread between the sign and the object feels almost impossible.
Anyway, these are just some wandering thoughts of mine, a sort of starting point for further questioning. I’m certainly not standing here claiming "this is the final truth and that's that."
We’re really starting to drift into the territory of linguistics and the philosophy of language here 🙂. It all comes down to that relationship between morphology and semantics. And honestly, it still hinges on how we define "symbol." If you view a symbol as a kind of metaphor—something vibrant and breathing—then sure, that works. But if you see a symbol as something static and dead, it just clashes with the idea of play being this constantly shifting, self-renewing force. I suspect Eugen Fink was leaning more toward the idea of a living metaphor.
What I’m trying to get at when we talk about "play as a symbol of the world"—which is almost like a Heraclitean logos—is that we’re picturing the world itself as a game. It’s dynamic. In this sense, the symbol acts as a metaphor, a sort of bridge that carries the shared meaning between play and the world. So, I think both you and Eugen Fink are right, but my intention wasn't to make a hard-and-fast claim; I just wanted to nudge the conversation toward the idea that the word "play," as a complex symbol or logogram, isn't quite the same thing as the actual reality hidden behind it—the signified.
The only thing that tripped me up was that word "symbol," mostly because lately, I've been viewing symbols as something pretty static and arbitrary. Thanks for reminding me about that other side of it, though—the "living" version of a symbol.
It might be more accurate to say that play inherently implies freedom. If play exists, but freedom doesn't, then the whole logical implication falls apart, at least according to strict formal logic 🙂. Then again, the beauty of language is that there's rarely just one way to say something. Now I'm left wondering: is there a real distinction between a symbol used as a metaphor (a carrier of information or pre-conveyed meaning) and a symbol used as an arbitrary mental shorthand, like how we associate an owl with wisdom or a fox with cunning?
I know I'm wandering a bit off-topic here, but hey, this is philosophy, and I don't think we should be putting any limits on how we think 🙂.
MC16, I think I’ve mentioned this once before, but I really feel the need to bring it up again—you might actually find a lot to love in the works of Jean Baudrillard. Reading through your posts, I keep spotting these subtle parallels and similarities between your perspective and his ideas, though I suppose you tend to use a much less perverse and idiosyncratic vocabulary than he does 😁. Plus, let's be honest, Baudrillard was an old pro, being well into his 70s 😉.
On another note, while I see you’re a pretty sharp critic, I can't help but wonder where you find the most vital component—the ALTERNATIVE? Without that, everything feels a bit hollow nowadays 😉. I'm also curious what constitutes a "real" game for you. Usually, for a game to actually function, it needs some sort of boundaries, right? Like when a little boy and girl play house; they aren't actually going to try and act out adult intimacy in real life. Or if we're playing war, maybe a round of paintball—there have to be rules and frameworks that allow us to do whatever we want, provided we stay within those lines. For instance, the paint isn't real bullets, everyone gets a set number of shots, and so on. If we want to step outside those boundaries, we just start a whole new game . Here’s a little something to chew on, too. I remember someone asking—maybe it was you, or maybe someone else, but I have a hunch it was you—"who exists outside the spectacle?". I was brainstorming about all sorts of things the other day and that question popped into my head, leading me to this conclusion: it’s obviously the people who create it. Not the ones keeping it on life support, but the architects. People acting like puppets, sheep, or lemmings by participating in the spectacle—every time they applaud or call in to vote for a contestant on a reality show like Survivor or Big Brother, they’re just feeding the existing system. But to build a system in the first place, you have to be OUTSIDE of it. Don't you think? It’s the same with criticizing a system; you have to step back from it to truly see it. You’ve stepped out, I believe I’ve stepped out, and plenty of people have stepped out. At least mentally (since that’s really the only option unless you decide to go live in a cave somewhere), and I’m talking about a mental departure. Now, here’s the million-dollar question, in the spirit of the spectacle: who created the spectacle? Is it just a natural stage in human evolution (if so, we're doomed 😁), or if it isn't, then who? Some higher intelligence? Sure. But is that intelligence some kind of "human"—and I'm using quotes there because I still cling to terms like "humanity" and "human" before they potentially change forever—corporate-capitalist, greedy entity, or do we need to start factoring in 4D reptilians into the mix? What’s actually real? Where do the lines get drawn? How can we even tell what is and what isn't? Do we even have reliable ways to know? Just some open questions for you... 😉
GoTo said:But what if gaming is actually a symbol for freedom...?
I’ve always felt that a symbol is usually pretty much dead on its own; it’s really just us people who breathe life into them by attaching all sorts of different meanings and associations to them. To me, gaming feels like something inherently alive—it's dynamic, active, and constantly moving. Because of that, I don't think the act of playing can truly be a symbol, though perhaps the word "play" itself could function as one, almost like a logogram. Or maybe some sort of phantom representation of the experience, or even "play" used in a metaphorical sense, could serve as a symbol. But the actual, physical act of playing? I just don't see it happening, mostly because the nature of play and the nature of symbols are just so fundamentally different. Then again, you could argue for playing with a symbol, but that's a whole different conversation entirely.
nobody and nothing said:MC16 👍 for the wording... though I honestly think the keyword program fits what you're getting at much better than game (besides, "a programmed game" sounds like an oxymoron; games are supposed to be free-form, and as Microsoft says, they are)... because if you use "program," you start drifting into things like TV (a TV program) or even ideology (a political program)...
Thanks for the reminder about the whole "game" aspect. That's really interesting... It actually sparked a few curious ideas in my head—just some subjective stuff, really. It felt like I was rediscovering old thoughts or maybe just tapping into some Platonic truths; I guess I was just remembering things I’ve always known deep down. Hehe...
geza said:Basically, these two just claim I'm talking nonsense without actually pointing out what kind of nonsense I'm supposedly spewing. So, to clear things up, here's a little breakdown of my supposed "stupidities":
CONSPIRACY!!!
It’s almost sad how some readers can't seem to connect the dots on their own... Honestly, man, I always knew you could influence someone through a bit of suggestion, but I didn't realize I possessed THAT kind of superpower. Goodness, thanks for the ego boost, geza...
So now I see it—it’s just classic academic syndrome... 😬 I really hope I don't end up falling into those same traps during my own college years; and even if I do, I truly hope I won't feel the need to force people to respect me just because I felt obligated to slog through every single book out there just to maintain some sense of self-respect...
Geza, look, if you actually want to write about something personal, then go for it. Start your own thread and lay out your ideas for everyone; I have no reason to believe they aren't worth hearing. But if your plan is just this cheap way of grabbing attention by trashing topics you don't actually understand—because let's be real, nobody knows everything—and throwing around ungrounded, almost paranoid labels like calling people "Marxist lapdogs" and whatnot, then you're just doing it wrong. Just because you wrote a 1,500-page book doesn't make you any smarter; if anything, it just makes it a proportionally more tragic case study...
Why do you feel such a need to keep bringing up Kangrga and Marx if they're basically relics of the past? Why not try writing something high-quality instead, stepping outside that outdated framework rather than just spinning your wheels in it? Nothing great ever really comes from tearing things down or undermining them. The funny thing is, I actually agree with a lot of what you say, but I don't see you actually living by it, whereas I'm out here trying to do exactly that. See, the whole point of philosophy isn't just nodding along and validating one another; it's about constantly asking, "Wait, why is it actually like this?" It seems like your ego doesn't quite grasp that, which leads to you feeding it hand and foot, resulting in these honestly pretty ridiculous and childish situations. I'm sorry, but I'm just not interested in all that. You should write whatever you want—that's your right and your choice. It's also my right to take people less seriously after outbursts like these. Best,
Geza, did I somehow offend you? Because if I did, then we’re dealing with an ego of truly astronomical proportions, and honestly, having a sane, healthy conversation with someone like that is basically impossible—I’ve learned that through plenty of trial and error... Philosophy is supposed to be a dialogue, not just some dogmatic rambling. It’s about constantly questioning everything, even philosophy itself, rather than just shouting slogans or throwing unbacked insults to prove yourself right. To me, philosophy is about beauty and the brilliance of the mind, not some egocentric outburst or acting all high and mighty just because someone doesn't see eye to eye with you. When I was talking about Kanrga, I kept things strictly polite and composed; I can't even begin to imagine how things would have gone down if I had actually let myself get emotional or cared too much, seriously... All I'm sensing here is this massive, old-school ego, and frankly, I have no interest in dealing with that kind of drama. It's just going in circles...
It isn't just that I've always seen your posts as interesting pieces of a larger puzzle—though I usually appreciate what you write because there's almost always something to learn if you read between the lines. But this level of dramatization and this unnecessary "hey everyone, look at me!" vibe really isn't my thing... What's the point?! There's a modern term for it that fits perfectly: "attention whore."
And if you find that "weird," then you clearly haven't been paying attention to the real avant-garde 😁. They’d probably just marry her. Assuming, of course, she enjoys doing the dishes and ironing everything. 😁
mistyscout2 said:It kind of reminds me of Kierkegaard and his take on anxiety—that idea that anxiety is actually just the dread of our own freedom and all the possibilities it brings.
I’m definitely on the same page as them, and honestly, I’d say I agree with Sartre too, because that freedom of choice carries this heavy weight of responsibility for everything we decide to do, whether it turns out well or not. I suspect most people are really just terrified of making those wrong turns.
But, you know, there’s more to the story than just that. It isn't a given that someone has "conquered" that internal struggle where they might lean toward a worse path, which is exactly where that fear kicks in. Maybe they just lacked a steady hand or some sort of guiding principle to keep them moving in the right direction. These are heavy thoughts to chew on, and while they carry a lot of weight once you sit with them, I don't think they should be considered the final word on the matter 😉.
Life can feel incredibly absurd sometimes, but it can also be the most meaningful journey imaginable. At the end of the day, our lives are really just a reflection of what's going on inside us; our actions and our thoughts are ultimately what shape our reality.
Sartre even put it pretty bluntly when he said something along the lines of "we are condemned to be free." It sounds like a total paradox, but if you look closer, it’s actually quite straightforward. I think most people are intuitively aware of this—we have the freedom to act, and while there are plenty of external factors out there, how much they actually impact us depends entirely on us. Unless, of course, those forces are just overwhelmingly stronger than we are, but that's a whole different conversation 🙂.
Jonathan Brown6 said:So you’re the one calling the shots on what’s acceptable and what isn't?
Not quite; I think nature just has a funny way of playing jokes on us sometimes.
Wow, great. You could probably make a living reading palms if you wanted to. Since you clearly have it all figured out, why don't you just tell me everything that's going to happen to me? If you know everything, you might as well start predicting the future.
Thanks for pointing out yet another one of my hidden talents, though I think I can manage to pay the bills without relying on fortune telling. 🙂.
relativnost said:And I’ve got one more thing to throw into the mix for you all.
I honestly feel like humans aren't all that different from animals. Every single move we make is driven by instinct; it's just that as humans, we have this ability to pull from a much wider library of past experiences than any animal could. At the end of the day, every thought we have and every action we take is really just an instinctive reaction shaped by everything we've been through before. The only real difference is that our internal database is a lot bigger, which lets us combine those pieces of information a bit more effectively.
You're basically reinventing the wheel here. I can see you're quite the bright and educated individual, eager to share these profound insights you've gathered throughout your long and wise journey through life😁. Thanks so much for sharing such revolutionary ideas with us—ideas that, by some strange coincidence, were actually shared by millions of people (both famous and, well, less famous) long before you arrived on the scene . Do you happen to have anything actually interesting to tell us, or maybe some arguments that go a bit deeper than just being disappointed based on a few mental patterns you picked up somewhere and decided to adopt as your own🙂?
I mean, if you're truly as brilliant as you seem, I'm a little curious why you're even hanging out here among the "philosophers." I can only guess that you might be one of those frustrated types who tries to "sell wisdom" somewhere, while subconsciously fishing for an answer that, naturally, won't come easily without a bit more actual effort. But hey, it's fine; we need people like you, in their own quirky way, and I appreciate you opening up a thread like this. It doesn't hurt anyone, I suppose. Well, maybe just you. But since the internet is this wild place where you can hide behind a screen and say whatever you want, I think it's a real virtue to be able to recognize the true nature, origin, and reliability of the information being tossed around😉.
But go ahead, you're quite charming; why not just start a new cult? We haven't had one on the market for a while now😁.
relativity said:I used to be pretty obsessed with philosophy, but lately, I’ve come to realize it’s all just a bunch of nonsense. If you look at everything from a molecular standpoint, we’re all essentially the same—whether it’s a rock, a flower, an animal, or a person—at least if you aren't talking about composition. People love to bring up things like the soul or the mind and all that jazz, but honestly, it feels like total nonsense to me.
What actually makes a human being any different from, say, the Mississippi River, when you look at it on a molecular level? Every single thought we have, every little movement we make, is just a chemical reaction—nothing more than a plain old chemical reaction. Because of that, I don't think we can really talk about any higher values regarding who we are as individuals.
It seems to me like you guys are all philosophizing just to feed your own "spirit," which is really just satisfying some internal need (another chemical reaction), since every emotion we feel is just chemistry at work. Even every word I’m typing right now is just the product of chemical reactions and atoms colliding, or whatever happens when you go deep enough—who even knows what’s hiding at the very bottom of it all?
But I'm starting to see that all this philosophizing doesn't actually lead anywhere; it's just another human habit. 👋
Actually, it might be that what you're saying is just a really crude way of simplifying things 🙂. I suspect you might be a bit young and haven't spent much time in this field yet—and I mean that as a simple observation, not an insult.
I'm going to try not to overwhelm you with long posts, though; since you started things off this way, I figured I should follow your lead. It’s probably not wise to lay all my cards on the table right away, or as the old saying goes, but I don't want to be rude 🙂.
I definitely agree that being intolerant isn't the way to go; honestly, embracing different perspectives is something I’ve always tried to prioritize as part of my own personal growth. But sometimes, when someone's primary attitude is just pure, unadulterated intolerance, that kind of energy tends to plant seeds of more intolerance in others, and by its very nature, you can't really "tolerate" that cycle. I'm not talking about physical conflicts or anything like that, just that internal sense of tolerance we carry. It’s pretty similar to how hate works—if you embrace hatred, then you're a hater, regardless of how you try to frame it. That's why I think it's better to lead with love to help clear out that hatred, because if you let hate sit there, it doesn't really trigger anything else in you besides more of itself 🙂.
When I used the word "vile," I just meant that I felt their behavior was wrong and that's how I perceived them. I might have been a little too blunt with my wording there, but I guess I was just speaking from a place of heat in the moment 😉.
Anyway, thanks to everyone for sharing your thoughts 😉.
Do you guys think pairing a philosophy major with English studies actually pays off in the real world? I’m wondering if there’s a future in academia or maybe somewhere else entirely—honestly, I wouldn't even mind teaching. I’ve been thinking about how many people here have taken a similar path, and I’d love to hear about your experiences or even just stories from your friends. Personally, I feel like there are plenty of us out there, but I’d really value some outside perspective before I dive in. My plan is to stick with English as my primary focus, but I’m seriously considering picking up philosophy as a heavy-hitting secondary subject. I’m just second-guessing whether it’s a smart combination to pursue.
On another note, why is it that certain unbearable jerks just can't stand seeing someone genuinely passionate about something, specifically when it comes to philosophy or the humanities? It honestly turns my stomach when people act like that, even if they’re just being condescending verbally rather than doing anything more direct.