Posts by Anonymous

Elvis Presley is way better😁

I’m all about listening to Elvis Presley... 😁 😁 😁 🙄

Innuendo... a total classic! 🙂

shadowgardener12, you’ve hit on something massive here—the whole process of an individual finding their true self.
How do we actually know if we are true vessels for the art of our era?
To me, it comes down to the artistic act of *being*, rather than just the act of *having*.
I respect where you’re coming from, and I think there’s some heavy truth in your argument, but I have to diverge a bit and share my own take.
Who actually matters in this conversation?
Heinrich Hein once famously said: Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.
Fast forward 120 years, and we're seeing those exact same patterns starting to emerge again right here in America.
Hein wasn't just making a point; he was being visionary. He was ahead of his time.
Even though he was primarily a poet, you could argue he was more than a philosopher—he was a visionary artist of the future, someone who saw what was coming.
I’ve always been fascinated by those persona-breakers—the outliers who exist outside the constraints of their time and space.
I see Nietzsche as the ultimate avant-garde figure in that regard. But look, we don’t all need to be Nietzsche; it’s enough to spend a lifetime chasing art, chasing philosophy, and striving to dismantle the stagnant systems within ourselves and the world around us.
Your perspective—which, granted, might feel totally irrelevant to how you perceive things—has one major flaw: it feels classical, outdated, and stuck looking backward.
That Nietzsche you’re observing so intently was operating on a level far beyond your current timeframe, because he was focused on experiencing the future in the present and evolving toward a new era.
The real magic lies in living the present as if it were the future, and treating the future as if it were happening right now.
In that sense, history has these critical turning points where certain souls leap forward spiritually, creating moments that can never be replicated.
When you look at it that way, Nietzsche is infinitely more advanced than any stale, traditional guru who acts perfectly moral while doing nothing to alleviate the actual suffering of the world.
By that standard, Nietzsche actually succeeded.
His struggle is cosmic, his innovation is absolute, the mark he left on the world is unique, and his art remains untouchable even today.
He succeeded because he actually had the guts to try, shadowgardener12—something I suspect you won't ever dare to do.
Honestly, labeling things as "Western" versus "Eastern" philosophy feels a bit too academic and textbook to me.
Trying to force Patanjali’s sutras into modern psychology is even more of a stretch; psychology is fundamentally rooted in philosophy—if it weren't, it wouldn't be philosophy to begin with—but trying to force philosophy into the mold of psychology? That’s a new one even for me.
And even A. Maslow’s concept of "self-actualization" is really just a repackaged application of philosophy.
But hey, that’s a whole other conversation.
😎

I'd be down for that together😁

Frank Lee6 said:I think the question here is slightly off base. Equality—for example, between men and women—presumes that both sides hold equal rights. Therefore, logically speaking, being "equal" and "having rights" are one and the same.

The real issue is the fact that having equality (or "possessing" a right) doesn't automatically mean you can actually exercise it in practice.

So, the actual question should be whether possessing a right implies the ability to use it, and the answer there would be a hard "NO."

CASE CLOSED!!!

Frank Lee6, how on earth do you think that’s the RIGHT QUESTION?
Frank Lee6, you can't just force a rephrasing of someone else's question just to be politically correct! The question Rebecca Miller2 asked was perfectly valid... your version might be a great question for its own separate thread... but from the perspective of the philosophy of language, it has absolutely nothing to do with what Rebecca Miller2 originally asked.

1. Fragility
2. Lord of the Rings
3. Minority Report

-1 Florida
-2 intersection

Hey there

Rebecca Miller2 said:Just look at today's so-called "psychological evaluations."

They’re clearly designed for a planet full of primates, not actual human beings.

Who would actually fare better if you dropped them in the middle of a massive, dark forest in the dead of night? Everything is unknown... just some guy off the street... or maybe a highly educated professor who prides herself on being all "empowered" and "intellectual"! Who survives in that kind of wilderness?

Why didn't I say in the middle of a big city like New York? Because professors here can rely on "unconventional" methods—like using their sexuality—to manipulate people and climb the career ladder. But out in the woods... away from other people... surrounded by nothing but beasts and raw danger... let's see how things go when a woman has no one left to "sell" her looks or charm to!

😁 😁 I'm talking about trucks and cars, and you're stuck on psych tests! 😁 😁

Aha, now I get why you're making such a big deal out of this.
But what about the women who aren't conventionally attractive and can't rely on their sexuality?

People who are obsessed with Nazi ideology tend to bounce wildly between two extremes when they read Nietzsche, swinging from total determinism to complete relativism.
On one hand, they see him as a hardline determinist—someone solely focused on the pursuit of the Superman.
On the other, they claim he’s a pure relativist who couldn't care less about anyone failing to reach that superhuman status.
But it's actually the exact opposite. Nietzsche’s message is this: fight. Take ownership of your own fate and have the courage to face yourself. If you live like that, you won't become a threat to others through your greatness; instead, you'll actually elevate them.
😉

Blaise said:If we’re talking about this on a broad level, then our discussion should stay broad too. Maybe the mistake was focusing solely on women during the deep dive, which is why everyone seems stuck on that one specific angle now.

There's a massive difference between having rights and actually being equal. You can dream up all the rights you want, but if you don't have the ability, the desire, or the permission to actually exercise them, then you aren't truly equal. Those are two totally different beasts—one is a legal matter, while the other is a social reality that depends on a whole host of factors beyond just what’s written in the law.

Blaise, how would you define the gap between a legal right and social equality?

The expert said:Listen, Oracle, this is crucial!
But your whole premise is flawed from the jump.

Capable, sure... but capable compared to what?

If men and women are equally capable, then why did God bother creating both? To have them doing the exact same jobs?

And don't even get me started on looking at it strictly from a physical standpoint, where the differences are... well, you know...

Maybe we should stop calling it "equality" and just call it "sameness" instead.???

And look what happens when we do...

-we lose everything that actually matters. 😛

It's pretty obvious you aren't reading these posts all the way through.

Nobody claimed that X and Y have identical skill sets; the point is they need the same starting line to prove themselves.

If you truly believe men are superior in every single way, then why are you even complaining? Whoever is better will prove it on their own merit.

I.L. said:Alright, calling all you self-proclaimed "philosophers"—let's see what you've got. Are these two things actually the same thing?

I've been having a few "deep conversations" lately... and now I'm looking for a solid definition.

Take the whole concept of women's "equality," for instance. Is "having rights" truly synonymous with "equality"? Based on my understanding of language and logic—it absolutely isn't!

"Equality" is not the same thing as "having rights"

Having rights is strictly a social construct, whereas equality can be biological... like physical equality, for example. We can all agree we aren't equal in that sense. Some women and men can have children while others can't... so there's an inequality there. Some people can handle much more physical strain due to their body type, while others can't... we're clearly not equal in that regard either.

But that’s a different story: how much should those biological realities actually impact the framework of human rights egalitarianism?

Whether you’re settling down or just catching your breath, if you aren't at the finish line, you're in for a fight.
That was Nietzsche’s whole philosophy.
He never pretended to be some detached observer; he lived every bit of that struggle himself.
In his book Beyond Good and Evil, he makes it clear: he isn't trying to be a psychologist. He’s a philosopher through and through.
Think about it—psychology actually grew out of philosophy. Philosophy, much like literature (which I mention because Nietzsche’s influence on postmodern lit is massive), has been around far longer than psychology. It takes decades, even centuries, for psychology to even begin to catch up to those disciplines. And if it ever does... who knows?
From Maslow all the way to transpersonal psychology, the field keeps trying to bridge that gap—but honestly, the connection feels tenuous and stays almost invisible when you look at the data.
I respect everyone's perspective, but before you try to label Nietzsche, you really ought to read him first.

Honestly, I couldn't care less about who's more capable; let X and Y compete if they want to.
If you’re racing a tractor against a Ferrari, obviously the Ferrari is going to win. There's nothing wrong with that.
But everyone deserves to line up at the exact same starting line.
That’s what true equality looks like.

I.L. said:Nowadays, women are actually threatening the very biological survival of men.

Thanks🙂

😲 😲 😕 😕 back this up with some actual facts.

Equality means everyone has an equal shot at something—meaning X and Y both have the same right to apply for a job, but the most qualified person is the one who actually gets it.

In the final years of his life, Nietzsche struggled with severe mental decline and bouts of disorientation.
History has taught us a hard lesson: when you take someone's philosophy out of context just to suit your own agenda—like how the Nazis twisted his ideas—you end up with something dangerous.
When he spoke about man being a "sick animal," he meant we need to heal ourselves and learn to master our own impulses.
He hammered home the idea of self-mastery throughout his entire body of work; it’s almost redundant to mention, unless you're one of those people trying to twist his words to soothe your own deep-seated insecurities.
Sociological studies have even noted a pattern: those who strip Nietzsche of his context often belong to rigid, fundamentalist religious groups or intolerant circles looking to force his genius into their narrow ideological boxes.
The irony is that Nietzsche was actually calling out the sheer hypocrisy of the Christianized Europe of his time.
😉

Let’s take it from square one...

For those of you who actually back him, what makes you think Nietzsche was on the right track?

And more importantly, why?

Honestly, I'm on team Blanchetica too...🙂))

shadowgardener12 said:From what I gather, Nietzsche was seriously unwell—struggling with neuroses, psychoses, and eventually full-blown insanity—so you shouldn't really take him all that seriously. 😉
In any case, his philosophy can be easily explained away through a psychological lens...

Even if he’ll always have his cult following, most people drawn to him are just looking for validation because they're inherently unstable themselves... you know how it goes. 😉

That's nonsense. That is such a shallow, surface-level interpretation of Nietzsche that it's basically on par with how Hitler viewed things...🙄

Here’s number six:

*Down and Dirty* – directed by Ettore Scola

Ready for number seven?