Search found 2665 matches
- Sun Sep 29, 2013 11:12 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Animals and nirvana
- Replies: 259
- Views: 62813
Re: Animals and nirvana
To my knowledge, Kierkegaard's journals show an ongoing awareness of struggling against melancholy. So he had some element of hell. He rarely gave into it, but it was like an irritating skin disease affecting his moods. He was occasionally bitter and sardonic. The melancholia was probably seated in ...
- Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:44 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Best Moral Philosophy?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7012
Re: Best Moral Philosophy?
How did you evaluate that to be true? By feelings? If so, you've thrown reason out the window. If not, you're contradicting yourself. So the statement is wrong either way.Orentholt wrote:feelings must be the basis of ALL values.
- Sat Sep 28, 2013 3:01 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Best Moral Philosophy?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7012
Re: Best Moral Philosophy?
In other words, thinking itself is the standard by which anything is evaluated as good or bad. One could say thinking = goodness.That means, thinking itself equates to morality.
- Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:57 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.
- Replies: 73
- Views: 37258
Re: feminists are more hypocritical than I thought.
To make the video truly sexy the women should have been wearing burkas with just their eyes showing. Not knowing what lies beneath the wrapping is extremely alluring BUT it’s those eyes that hold the magical world where a man believes he’ll at last find his home. Reminds me of some of Weininger's l...
- Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:47 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Best Moral Philosophy?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7012
Re: Best Moral Philosophy?
I used to agree with Shakespeare's line in Hamlet: "for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." But on closer examination, it's shown to be a henid. If thinking evaluates something as good or bad, then thinking is the function of determining morality. That means, th...
- Fri Sep 27, 2013 4:22 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Best Moral Philosophy?
- Replies: 12
- Views: 7012
Re: Best Moral Philosophy?
"Good" is happiness. We say that things are "good" because they make us happy. Sure, you can say that sometimes people are shortsighted and I think that just goes to prove that "good" is truly utilitarian. It's not what just makes us happy temporarily, it's what gives ...
- Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:15 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Whilst my statements can be seen as "absolute" in the sense of being universal statements, they are not absolute in the sense of being uncontestable: in that sense they are made in the same spirit which I suggested in that very same quote was "fine" - that they are simply the be...
- Thu Sep 19, 2013 7:55 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
I just wanted to step back into this thread briefly to comment on the problem of misrepresentation, a common problem on this forum,....An example of this is Kelly's assertion that I have made an "absolute claim that no absolute statement can be justified": whereas in fact I have made no s...
- Wed Sep 18, 2013 10:27 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
That's still self-contradictory, Dennis. You believe you're offering an alternative to "thinking categorically", yet your "same shit" declaration is itself a category. You criticise others as openly and categorically as I do. The difference between us is, you pretend you aren't, ...
- Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:57 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Dennis, you're still contradicting yourself. You think Laird as a bunch of causes is no different to me as a bunch of causes, or Diebert, etc. Yet if you really believed that all causes are identical, you wouldn't have been trying to correct me or Diebert. You clearly see that correcting others has ...
- Mon Sep 16, 2013 10:59 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
I can't see how scathing verbals generate the ultimate goal of being of service. All that happens is Laird joins the affray and returns sometime later and authentically apologises It's not scathing verbals to call a spade a spade. Laird's whole long-winded essay rests on two basic illogicalities. A...
- Thu Sep 12, 2013 12:28 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Dennis, you're contradicting yourself. If you think Laird is fine because he is ultimately an expression of perfect Reality, then why attack Diebert? Why interact with anyone? Not only that, but you're doing Laird (and others) a disservice, by reinforcing their inability to understand Reality. Laird...
- Wed Sep 11, 2013 12:50 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
I don't seem to have the energy or motivation for these extended discussions/debates right now, and because I suspect that in some ways they're not particularly productive. You're so predictable. Haven't you noticed you always enter these manic-depression states whenever you engage on the Genius Fo...
- Tue Sep 10, 2013 11:17 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
David wrote: Passing the buck onto "qualified third parties" is part of the problem, not the solution. Laird wrote: Certainly, I agree that we need strong personal commitments to truthfulness and honesty, but if you think that's enough, then you're badly mistaken. No, Laird, you're still ...
- Sun Sep 08, 2013 8:38 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Jupiviv wrote: I'm not sure citing email exchanges about offline affairs is a good way to respond to that kind of defamation. You could have explained why those charges are injudicious without bringing up private affairs. I think you missed the point of my posts. The best way to refute defamation is...
- Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:12 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Jupiviv asked: Uh...shouldn't this be a pm? No. Laird has slandered me and others, basically calling us brain-washed cult-followers. That's defamation. I have called him to provide evidence, and he has refused, declaring basically that he doesn't trust me. What does that mean? He doesn't trust me to...
- Sat Sep 07, 2013 4:28 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Laird, I'm sorry, but I don't buy your reply. It strikes me as incongruous that only couple of months ago, you emailed me out of the blue, to ask me if I'd like to rent your house, saying you wouldn't offer it for rent on the public market, but only to someone you could trust . That is usually what ...
- Sat Sep 07, 2013 2:46 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Larkin Debate revisited
- Replies: 96
- Views: 32224
Re: The Larkin Debate revisited
Laird, You wrote: Then there are the "true believers" who swallow this system whole, and enthusiastically proselytise it - people like Nick, Ryan, Kelly, Sue and Russell. but now you say: I think it's fine to say, "This is the best of my current understanding", which is pretty mu...
- Wed Apr 10, 2013 11:34 am
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Emancipating Reality
- Replies: 32
- Views: 13759
Re: Emancipating Reality
Orenholt, It is not pomposity, preposterous pride, religious dogmatism, condescending heroism or anything of the sort. It's my experience that prompts me to post very clear and emphatic warnings about the extreme demands of the path to enlightenment. It saves lots of unnecessary suffering and self-d...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:24 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Emancipating Reality
- Replies: 32
- Views: 13759
Re: Emancipating Reality
Higher learning does not take place when the student might expect it, but when the conditions are right, when the fruit is ripe. The trick is knowing when to treat what you are learning like you are viewing a rainbow -- not something to grasp at and be absolutely certain of, but something to witnes...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 9:14 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Emancipating Reality
- Replies: 32
- Views: 13759
Re: Emancipating Reality
KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself. O: Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not eve...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 8:48 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Right and Wrong?
- Replies: 138
- Views: 26516
Re: Right and Wrong?
Dan, I don't personally see the following anecdote as important to this discussion, because I don't think a mirror test says anything useful about determining the presence of egotism in another creature, but just for your information, I'll tell you my experience. I stood about two metres away direct...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 1:06 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: The Sexes
- Replies: 349
- Views: 83996
Re: The Sexes
If you're saying that brains do exist then why did you criticize me and say "She literally believes that a brain exists "out there", beyond her own experiences of the world. But scientific materialism is a very popular error, so I'm not surprised." ? The existence of the brain, ...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:49 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Emancipating Reality
- Replies: 32
- Views: 13759
Re: Emancipating Reality
KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself. O: Ok, I can accept that the universe doesn't have an appearance and that everything is just a concept based on a perception but now you're saying the universe is not eve...
- Mon Apr 08, 2013 12:38 pm
- Forum: GENIUS FORUM
- Topic: Emancipating Reality
- Replies: 32
- Views: 13759
Re: Emancipating Reality
KJ: There is nothing objectively real. There's just that raw experience and the concepts one develops to describe it to oneself. C: You made a statement "There is nothing objectively real" then you made another statement which was just a restatemnt.You did nothing to prove it. Just becaus...