Posts by Gregory Nelson

I'll drop by as well. J.

What steps could we actually take as individuals to become more ascetic and moderate?

Nothing, quite frankly. It is an impossible goal because one cannot simultaneously pursue asceticism and moderation; asceticism is, by its very definition, a form of excess.

Robin Palmer6 said:I'm not entirely sure if this is the right subforum for this kind of thing...

Answer the following question with a simple yes or no. Please don't dodge the question; be serious for once.

If you had the opportunity to kill just one person without facing any legal consequences,
would you do it?

If your answer is yes, everyone else will view you as a psychopath in need of psychiatric help, while those others pretend to be morally superior innocents.
If your answer is no, everyone will know you're lying—even if they don't call you out on it—because it would be obvious they'd all lie too if they said no.

My answer is yes.

It is quite obvious that I must respond with YES, simply to avoid the indignity of being caught in a lie, especially since no one here has the courage to call me out on it anyway. Now, I suppose I should select a target just to make this little charade more convincing. Perhaps Lady Gaga? She’s actually rather pleasant. I shall give it some more thought...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d12EI3xNiqE

Sandra Wilson68 said:Gregory Nelson

Whatever. Just keep in mind that there's a specific kind of "whatever" we’re talking about—the stuff we actually know exists. That kind of whatever? It exists twice over.

The single biggest blunder in philosophy—honestly, maybe even in how we process reality itself—is this delusional assumption that "everything" actually exists.

There’s no such thing as "everything"!

There is only ONE existence. Everything else—all this "stuff" we see around us—is just that ONE thing transforming itself through a long, grueling process we call "evolution." Why do we still act like there's more than one thing? All this "stuff" is just how that ONE thing manifests itself physically. These things pop in and out of existence all the time. They are nothing more than the physical, synchronized movements and actions of that ONE entity. Because they are just actions, they can start and stop whenever they feel like it. And because they are just movements, they don't actually possess "existence" on their own. Only that ONE thing has the capacity to move and perform those actions. Think about it: a runner sprinting down a track in New York City isn't the same thing as the act of running. The run is just an action; the runner is the reality. This rule applies to the entire universe and everything you can touch or see—from subatomic particles and atoms to planets, cells, plants, animals, or humans. They are all just different, rhythmic movements of that ONE thing. They cycle through beginnings and endings, but they don't hold the weight of existence. Only that ONE thing, acting from the core of everything, actually exists. That ONE thing never changes; it’s eternal. Only its movements change. It's simple: the ONE is the cause, and everything else is just the effect.

Even Hegel gets this right when he dives into his logic of existence. Here’s the gist: if something exists as a FIRST state and then evolves into something ELSE, that "else" isn't actually a new thing. It still exists—it’s just the FIRST thing shifting its shape or moving into a different phase.

Physics is basically trying to tackle the exact same headache, though they haven't cracked it yet. The only real difference is the angle. They aren't asking "What exists?" instead, they're obsessing over "What is the universe actually made of?" The current takeaway is that matter isn't even a thing—it’s just energy. Everything is built from energy, which, if you strip it down, is nothing more than movement and work. But here’s the kicker: physics still hasn't answered what that fundamental "thing" is—the entity that actually *exists* and possesses the capacity to move and work, thereby building the entire universe and everything in it. All we know is that this thing—this core existence—has the power to move and act. When it’s at rest, it has no physical properties, no shape, and to any observer, it looks like empty space or a field. It looks like nothing. It’s only when it starts moving and doing its thing that it takes on objective, physical, perceptible qualities. But there's a massive catch. That physical, energetic stuff we can actually see and feel? That isn't the actual entity that started moving. That's just the byproduct of its action. We're seeing the work, not the worker. The "He" at the heart of that action remains invisible and unknown to everyone else. He stays known only to Himself and to the action He is performing.

How does philosophy even run into this mess? It happens when people try to hunt down the Truth—the big "T" Truth—aka "the thing-in-itself." Basically, you realize that if we could actually grasp the Truth, we’d finally understand what everything in the universe actually *is* on its own. Not just how things look to us observers, but what they truly are in their own skin. Because let's face it: what we see is always just a projection. To an outsider, things are always something different than what they are deep down. I think Schopenhauer spent the most time banging his head against this "thing-in-itself" problem. And honestly? He failed. He just slapped the label "transcendental" on the whole area of knowledge and called it a day, without ever giving a straight answer as to what "transcendental" even means.

In this light, if we actually want to uncover the "Truth with a capital T," our first move should be asking WHAT EXISTS? We need to tackle "things as they are" head-on. Without answering that, we’re just spinning our wheels—we won't ever truly grasp what actually exists or what the "Truth with a capital T" really looks like.

Look, I’m convinced we already have all the individual pieces of this massive puzzle called the "Truth with a capital T." What we're missing is the big picture itself. You don't see the whole mosaic until every single piece is snapped into its rightful place. Honestly, I don't think it's that hard. If there are people here actually interested in chasing the "Truth with a capital T," we can finish this if we follow the path I'm laying out right now.

This brings to mind Plato’s Parmenides—a rather exhausting logical exercise, if one has the patience for it—which grapples with the concept of the ONE. The general conclusion drawn from the two primary premises (if the One is, and if the One is not) essentially suggests that that single thing, whether it exists or not, and both it and the other, in relation to themselves and to each other, in every conceivable way, both are and are not, and seem to be and seem not to be (as all things do). Plotinus leaned more heavily into Plato's concept of the ONE. Besides, even if we were to grasp this "one," what would we actually do with it? In this fragmented world of ours, the ONE serves little purpose. Even God is understood to divide into three divine persons.

I suspect Schopenhauer dealt most extensively with the problem of the "thing-in-itself" in philosophy.

No, that was Kant; Schopenhauer portrayed the thing-in-itself as Will.

Sandra Wilson68 said:The Truth with a capital "T" boils down to answering three core existential questions:

1. WHAT EXISTS?

2. HOW DOES THAT STUFF EXIST?

3. WHY DOES ANY OF IT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE?

We actually already know the answers to these three questions. That means we already hold the Truth with a capital "T." Our only problem is that we haven't been smart enough to actually ask them yet. And obviously, since we haven't asked, we haven't even bothered trying to find the answers.

Give it a shot and see for yourself.

Everything, though I should point out that there is a specific subset of "everything" that exists simply because we are conscious of it. That particular "everything" possesses a double existence.

2. HOW DOES THAT WHICH EXISTS, EXIST?

Every possible "how," though I must admit that for certain things, I am quite lost as to how they function at all...

3. WHY DOES THAT WHICH EXISTS, EXIST?

For every "why"—for all reasons—it seems to boil down to mutual interpolation. Most philosophers, for instance, seem to exist merely to provide tedious answers to such tiresome questions.

And I suppose that is where the ultimate Truth resides.

Anyone who actually gives a damn about the truth would realize that Truth with a capital T and Lies with a capital L are often just two sides of the same coin—if one can even be certain the other exists at all.

gentlescout70 said:Where on earth has all sense of decorum vanished to? I find myself wondering about the younger generation and even their parents, who seem increasingly unable—or perhaps simply unwilling—to instill even the slightest shred of etiquette in them, mostly because they themselves have lost touch with those very standards, even though such rules naturally shift depending on whether you're in Chicago or New York. When I speak of this disappearance, I don't mean that manners have been wiped off the face of the earth entirely, but rather that they have become an exceedingly rare commodity. Why has it become the accepted norm to act with total disregard for social graces, only to have the person actually trying to behave properly met with judgmental glares? This topic touches upon more than just the decline of politeness; from my perspective, it encompasses the vanishing of all those subtle, beautiful elements of life that we simply don't value anymore—everything from the quality of music to how one chooses to spend their day, right down to the most minute details of social conduct. It seems that for the vast majority, superficial, low-quality nonsense holds far more weight than anything possessing actual substance. For instance, why bother hosting a major tennis tournament in Paris if the crowd lacks the basic decency to remain quiet during a game? Why is aggressive behavior tolerated so easily now? Why is it considered acceptable for historic downtown districts to be defaced by graffiti, or for counterfeit Ralph Lauren goods to flood the market and be purchased by people who wouldn't know the real thing if it hit them? I could go on forever. Honestly, it feels as though we are overdue for a comet to sweep through and thin out ninety percent of the population. Perhaps since the masses refuse to appreciate true quality, those of us who still do can take solace in our small numbers, but one has to wonder... why...

I suspect the reason lies in the dwindling readership of classic etiquette manuals like Emily Post's; apparently, nobody wants to be a "proper" kid by following a hundred different lessons. I was fortunate enough to read such a book as a child, which explains why I still maintain some semblance of decency.

When I say it has disappeared, I don't mean it has ceased to exist entirely, but rather that it has become an exceedingly rare commodity.

And what exactly do you include under the umbrella of etiquette?

Why has it become acceptable to act against all social decorum, only to have the person actually following the rules looked at as if they were the problem?

Because being polite isn't considered "cool" anymore. And kids, unfortunately, prioritize being cool above all else.

Where have all the simple beauties of life gone? From music to how one chooses to spend their day, down to the smallest details of etiquette—it feels like none of it is valued anymore.

How could music have simply vanished? Or the various ways people choose to live their lives? That seems a bit hyperbolic.

For most people, superficial and low-quality things hold more value than anything truly worthwhile.

That shouldn't necessarily be a bad thing; it means there's less competition and more breathing room to enjoy the truly valuable things.

Why bother hosting a major tennis tournament in Paris if the crowd lacks the discipline to remain quiet during a match?

So that the head umpire finally earns his paycheck by having to constantly remind everyone to shut up.

Why has it become normal to tolerate aggressive behavior?

Because tolerance is often the path of least resistance, and besides, being tolerant is generally considered a virtue.

Why is it considered perfectly acceptable for the historic downtown core to be covered in graffiti?

Because a writer isn't truly a writer if they aren't leaving their mindless little tags all over the concrete jungle. It’s the fourth element of hip-hop—it's just part of the culture. 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpCnhtY2Pp8

Why do counterfeit Lacoste products even exist?

To make a quick buck, obviously.

Why would anyone actually buy them?

I can't say for certain, but it's likely because they're half the price...

Honestly, I think we need a comet to strike us and wipe out 90% of the population.

And leave behind only the 10% who actually follow basic social etiquette? I can already see the sequel being written—something like "Etiquette 3: How to Avoid Getting Hit by a Comet in 80 Lessons." "bonton 3: kako da izbjegnem to da budem pogođen/a kometom u 80 lekcija".

Regarding how one should handle those who have wronged them, I find myself returning to the old adage: forgive, but never forget. Personally, I find that particular brand of vengeance—the kind that lingers—to be the most lethal and insidious sort. It’s a trap that ends up shackling not just the offender, but the victim as well. In my estimation, it is far better to simply settle the score and move on than to succumb to such a hollow, binding cycle of resentment.

mistyfox812 said:Whatever. You can't own metaphors, so there's no such thing as theft here. Besides, I'm not even "passing it off" as mine (honestly, you always try to spin this into me stealing or scamming or some other drama every single time). Look, I already made my stance clear on this: Everything I write on this board is totally unoriginal—nothing groundbreaking, nothing wild, just stuff that's been written somewhere else before.

In philosophy, originality doesn't mean squat—it's truth that matters. If something is true, then it's universal. It doesn't belong to me, or some random guy, or even Heidegger or Rockefeller.

And yet, if one wishes to articulate any semblance of truth with any degree of precision, one finds that exceptional originality becomes an absolute necessity.