GENIUS FORUMS

having sex, same as having 'truth'

I was thinking about this recently, and it occured to me that there wasn't any significant difference between one who wants to have a lot of sex and one who wants to have many 'truths'.
Both people desire something, either an experience or an idea. They are both possessive in that sense, and revolve around satisfying the individual. One man lusts over sex, the other lusts over ideas. The only difference, is that one desires X and the other desires Y.

Essentially one man wants apples and the other oranges.
Functionally they are slightly different. Their value is irrelevant, because its predicated by the individual and subjective.


being rich, same as being wise


rich and wise are types of identities people give themselves.
Once they have accumulated enough money they begin to think they are rich, as opposed to poor. Similarly, once they have accumulated enough information, concepts, insights, "truths", they begin to think they are wise, as opposed to ignorant.

The only difference I can think of between these categories, is functionality. Ofcourse sex can produce babies, while concepts alone can't. And the rich man can purchase things poor people can't.
But these are trivial details. Really, all categories of people are on the same level, since there is nothing we are supposed to do, we try to do whatever we desire and enjoy most.


So the wise philosopher, the corporate shark, and the womanizer playboy are essentially the same.

That's essentially true, but there's one very important factor that you're leaving out which actually differentiates the philosopher - consciousness.

The philosopher knows what he's doing; he knows what he's about (I'm going to completely ignore Nietzsche here). Those other types are operating, generally speaking, from a basis of unconsciousness and ignorance. But ultimately, values are subjective and all have the same standing from Nature's point of view.

I also agree that what he says is essentially true, but if the philosopher, (and it's a fairly big if perhaps) attains to consciousness, and I don't even mean enlightenment but even what I have - it is a prize that isn't comparable to any others because it is in another realm of value.

Okay, I'm a bit bored right now, so I'll bite this bait...

hades wrote:having sex, same as having 'truth'

I was thinking about this recently, and it occured to me that there wasn't any significant difference between one who wants to have a lot of sex and one who wants to have many 'truths'.
Both people desire something, either an experience or an idea. They are both possessive in that sense, and revolve around satisfying the individual. One man lusts over sex, the other lusts over ideas. The only difference, is that one desires X and the other desires Y.

Wrong. One who is seeking sexual experiences is ego-feeding, self-serving, and satisfying a libido.

("Lusts?" Who gets a woody and physically ejaculates over realizing that his life is meaningless? Get a grip, dude.)

One who is searching for ideas, wisdom, truth, is trying to better himself, explore himself and the world (maybe even the universe) and is not trying fill an empty void with pussy, likely to justify his supposed masculinity (because nothing else in civilization seems to get it done like female crack, I suppose), being so womanly himself.

This is like comparing a whore to a teacher---but don't get me wrong: I'm rather fond of whores. One does something for profit and the other does it for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with profit. Huge difference.

(Unless you're making an argument for being a greedy, shallow, ignorant, self-absorbed, childish, TV-gazing, money-grubbing moron. In which case, keep trying...)

Essentially one man wants apples and the other oranges.
Functionally they are slightly different. Their value is irrelevant, because its predicated by the individual and subjective.

Sure! --Hitler wanted dead Jews and Jesus wanted peace among men. Functionally they are slightly different. Apples and oranges. (Their intent---and all context---is irrelevant, of course.)

being rich, same as being wise

Naturally: you, same as being a silicon dune on the moon.

rich and wise are types of identities people give themselves.
Once they have accumulated enough money they begin to think they are rich, as opposed to poor. Similarly, once they have accumulated enough information, concepts, insights, "truths", they begin to think they are wise, as opposed to ignorant.

Aren't they both acknowledging the fact? (I know of no wise men who actually call themselves Wisemen; I know of plenty of rich people who call themselves rich, well-off, loaded, whichever.)

Man A collects lots of beans; one day, he has so many he starts to think he might have the most beans.

Man B collects nothing; after most of his life, he realizes that he might be one of the few people who don't collect things.

Two different men in totally different situations both realized something. Amazing. What's your point?

The only difference I can think of between these categories, is functionality. Ofcourse sex can produce babies, while concepts alone can't. And the rich man can purchase things poor people can't.
But these are trivial details. Really, all categories of people are on the same level, since there is nothing we are supposed to do, we try to do whatever we desire and enjoy most.

If we were monkeys, that might be true---but there's this pesky ethical region in a seldom-used part of the brain (the right hemisphere) near another region responsible for what we call a "conscience." These let us know right from wrong and act accordingly; and there are other areas in either hemisphere that allow us to know all kinds of things, even when we're unaware of knowing.

So, really, your last sentence might be more accurate as:

"Really, most categories of people are on similarly low levels, since there is nothing we are conscious enough to know, like what we're supposed to do or not do, and we're too lazy and infantile to think about it, so we try to do whatever we want and enjoy our addictions spoon-fed to us from society, and leave the world slightly worse than when we first arrived."

There we go. Fixed.

So the wise philosopher, the corporate shark, and the womanizer playboy are essentially the same.

Hell ya---Josef Stalin, Elizabeth Bathory, and Ghandi, well heck, they were all essentially the same...

Nordicvs wrote:
Wrong. One who is seeking sexual experiences is ego-feeding, self-serving, and satisfying a libido.


One who is searching for ideas, wisdom, truth, is trying to better himself, explore himself and the world (maybe even the universe) and is not trying fill an empty void with pussy, likely to justify his supposed masculinity (because nothing else in civilization seems to get it done like female crack, I suppose), being so womanly himself.

Both are ego-feeding, both are satisfying a hunger. The only difference is the diet. One prefers sex, the other knowledge.

Greed and lust extend to more than just money and sex. Think more about it.

Ever read the novel, Vathek? Didn't think so. His desire began with sex and riches, then arcane wisdom, knowledge and power. Essentially his hunger was always the same, the only thing different was the object.


The rest of your reply proved to be incoherent and irrelevant, so I only replied to that one point you made. When you are bored, you dont seem to come up with anything interesting to say. Go figure.

Hell ya---Josef Stalin, Elizabeth Bathory, and Ghandi, well heck, they were all essentially the same...

Ya, they are.
Apples and oranges.

hades wrote: Both are ego-feeding, both are satisfying a hunger. The only difference is the diet. One prefers sex, the other knowledge.

Crap. "Prefers?" Give me a goddamned break ("Hmm...I was thinking of porking my old lady, but now I kinda wanna pork that painting on the wall!"). Think back to your school days--can't be too long ago: how many fellow students had orgasms reading text books?

1. There is no pressing physiological need to acquire knowledge beyond adolescence (ever wonder why there's no gland responsible for the "wisdom drive?"---it's due to it not existing in the human body); there is one to help satisfy sexual appetites, to continue the species.

2. There is no biological reward for acquiring knowledge as there is regarding sexual climax.

3. If what you say is true, the world would be full of brilliant people, geniuses everywhere, all just as horny for knowledge and truth and wisdom as for sex. For every sex-addicted dumbass we have today, the person would be an Einstein or Socrates or Nietzsche or whoever.

Yeah, right; we have reality TV. We're a world of drooling idiots because we have no such drive aside from what's below the waist. Every "normal" person feels the libido (out of his or her control); there is no corresponding drive for knowledge or wisdom except in those who have made the choice.

hades wrote:Greed and lust extend to more than just money and sex. Think more about it.

The obvious bit would be to point out that knowledge is shared as easily as it was gathered, and that a greedy person is called greedy precisely because he or she doesn't share...

Obviously greed is about more than money, but "greed for knowledge" is bordering on being an oxymoron in this context. Money is just another object. (It's materialism---yunno, it has that root Latin word for Mother = Mater---which is found in other words like matriarchy, matrimony, maternal, matter.)

Greed: "intense and selfish desire for food, wealth, or power." Seems right to me. Could someone possibly be greedy for power, and the influence that comes with it, as in "knowledge is power?" Sure, it's possible, some people try to do that, and they fail when they realize that they can't make a lot of money at it. (I remember a guy who tried to eat his car---does that mean that driving cars is the same as eating them? Probably, according to you.)

Philosophers don't; scholars don't; spiritual gurus don't. Masculine thinkers are not greedy; they share what they have and what they learn, they don't put it in a bank to hoard it. (Wow. If you knew anything about the masculine-feminine, the right brain-left brain...you would never have posted this thread at all.)

Lust: "1 strong sexual desire. 2 a passionate desire for something. 3 Theology; a sensuous appetite regarded as sinful."

This is carnal greed, sexual want. Even a "passionate desire" for "knowledge" makes no bloody sense. Passionate? How the hell do you "passionately" read or study? How many people wiggle in their seats, barely able to contain their excitation, holding their breath to reach the next thrilling page of Thomas Carlyle's "Early Kings of Norway?"

Again, this is possible, but it's not likely, certainly not as the rule among serious readers and thinkers. Passion is part of the creative process (and no, I won't say which side of the brain it's own---I know that tends to twist your panties in a bunch), not the learning process.

For someone who thinks humans have no minds, you're really stretching with all this thin logic.

hades wrote:Ever read the novel, Vathek? Didn't think so. His desire began with sex and riches, then arcane wisdom, knowledge and power. Essentially his hunger was always the same, the only thing different was the object.

Why would I care what a character in a book did? In a novel I read, one character drank vodka out of a baby bottle---there, now the next time an argument arises that involves either baby bottles or vodka, I'm going use that as evidence. WTF?

hades wrote:The rest of your reply proved to be incoherent and irrelevant,

No, it didn't; you simply didn't bother to think, or read it, or you did and simply could not counter it logically, so now you resort to this feminine-brained tripe.

so I only replied to that one point you made. When you are bored, you dont seem to come up with anything interesting to say. Go figure.

Please, don't shame me like that---it really hurts! To think that some random n00b on a forum doesn't think I'm interesting...I'll never know how I get to sleep tonight.

It's interesting, when one lacks substance, how quickly he (or she) dives into his or her secondary bag o' tricks---random anecdotes, cheap-shots, insults, tangents, all demonstrating your monstrous insecurity (clearly observable here: "Ever read the novel, Vathek? Didn't think so"---whoa, take it easy, tiger; there's no need for your little "look how smart I are cuz I reads a book you didn't so there, n I just said so"---is that why you're here...feeling insecure about how smart you are and resent others who appear smarter or just well read, ...so this thread's really an "i hate u book-learn' types"?).

So, more feminine fun and games, or are you going to attempt to prove your little "wanna screw and eat books" theory?

Nordicvs wrote to Hades:

Okay, I'm a bit bored right now, so I'll bite this bait...

Is this the extent of your interest in philosophy – as an entertainment?

Hades: I was thinking about this recently, and it occured to me that there wasn't any significant difference between one who wants to have a lot of sex and one who wants to have many 'truths'.

Wrong. One who is seeking sexual experiences is ego-feeding, self-serving, and satisfying a libido.

One who is searching for ideas, wisdom, truth, is trying to better himself, explore himself and the world (maybe even the universe)…

The “one” searching for ideas, etc, isn’t also “ego-feeding and self-serving”? How do you figure that?

This is like comparing a whore to a teacher---but don't get me wrong: I'm rather fond of whores. One does something for profit and the other does it for any number of reasons that have nothing to do with profit. Huge difference.

Are you saying that teachers don’t profit in any way from teaching?

Hades: Essentially one man wants apples and the other oranges. Functionally they are slightly different. Their value is irrelevant, because its predicated by the individual and subjective.

Sure! --Hitler wanted dead Jews and Jesus wanted peace among men. Functionally they are slightly different. Apples and oranges. (Their intent---and all context---is irrelevant, of course.)

Hitler’s desire to wipe the Jewish race from off the planet was his idea of bringing peace to humanity. Christian’s glean from Jesus’ words anything that helps promote mindlessness – which is their idea of bringing peace to humanity. Both are ego-feeding and self-serving.

Hades: being rich, same as being wise

Naturally: you, same as being a silicon dune on the moon.

Hades isn’t discussing the nature of existence - that’s on another thread. Hades point is that egotism underlies all human action – which is a valid argument.

Hades: rich and wise are types of identities people give themselves.

Once they have accumulated enough money they begin to think they are rich, as opposed to poor. Similarly, once they have accumulated enough information, concepts, insights, "truths", they begin to think they are wise, as opposed to ignorant.

Aren't they both acknowledging the fact? (I know of no wise men who actually call themselves Wisemen; I know of plenty of rich people who call themselves rich, well-off, loaded, whichever.)

I wonder why all the wise men you know don’t go about calling themselves “Wisemen”? Are they embarrassed by their wisdom?

Man A collects lots of beans; one day, he has so many he starts to think he might have the most beans.

Man B collects nothing; after most of his life, he realizes that he might be one of the few people who don't collect things.

Two different men in totally different situations both realized something. Amazing. What's your point?

The point Hades is making is that both activities are products of the ego. Your “Man A and B” examples have done nothing to dissuade anyone from that point of view.

Hades: The only difference I can think of between these categories, is functionality. Ofcourse sex can produce babies, while concepts alone can't. And the rich man can purchase things poor people can't. But these are trivial details. Really, all categories of people are on the same level, since there is nothing we are supposed to do, we try to do whatever we desire and enjoy most.

If we were monkeys, that might be true---but there's this pesky ethical region in a seldom-used part of the brain (the right hemisphere) near another region responsible for what we call a "conscience." These let us know right from wrong and act accordingly; and there are other areas in either hemisphere that allow us to know all kinds of things, even when we're unaware of knowing.

So, really, your last sentence might be more accurate as:

"Really, most categories of people are on similarly low levels, since there is nothing we are conscious enough to know, like what we're supposed to do or not do, and we're too lazy and infantile to think about it, so we try to do whatever we want and enjoy our addictions spoon-fed to us from society, and leave the world slightly worse than when we first arrived."

There we go. Fixed.

No – once again you are way off target. Hades correctly states that there is “nothing we are supposed to do”: that is, there is no right and wrong; no good and bad. People are driven by their egos to find happiness wherever they can.

The way you describe ‘conscience’ also makes it a plaything for the ego, for you have it acting according to what is “right”, instead of acting according to what is true.

Hades: So the wise philosopher, the corporate shark, and the womanizer playboy are essentially the same.

Hell ya---Josef Stalin, Elizabeth Bathory, and Ghandi, well heck, they were all essentially the same...

The list of people you gave exemplifies Hades point perfectly, as they are definitely “all essentially the same” – for each one was completely at the mercy of their ego.

-

The main argument against Hades’ idea is that once a person becomes conscious of their own lack of an inherent nature, they can never again be completely under the sway of the ego. This means that they can act according to their wisdom, and even call themselves “Wisemen” (if they considered it beneficial to do so) – all without the ego playing a part in any of it. This means that wise people are indeed different from other people.

-
Sue

The main argument against Hades’ idea is that once a person becomes conscious of their own lack of an inherent nature, they can never again be completely under the sway of the ego. This means that they can act according to their wisdom, and even call themselves “Wisemen” (if they considered it beneficial to do so) – all without the ego playing a part in any of it. This means that wise people are indeed different from other people.

Hmmm, I think once a person "becomes conscious of their own lack of an inherent nature" they stop trying to be something they are not, and become what they always were. That is to say, they no longer try to delude others and themselves into thinking they aren't egotistical and selfish. They no longer differentiate between wisemen and ignorant men, masculine and feminine, rich men and poor men, because they understand inherently they are all the same, empty...

But this isn't really the point I wanted to get across with this thread. oh well

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Nordicvs wrote to Hades:

Okay, I'm a bit bored right now, so I'll bite this bait...

Is this the extent of your interest in philosophy – as an entertainment?

I got the sense (as well as from experience) it was not a serious "philosophical subject." I've seen enough bait-threads, and when one looks and feels a lot like it, it usually is.

I do not seek entertainment when bored. I find challenges or invent them.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:The “one” searching for ideas, etc, isn’t also “ego-feeding and self-serving”? How do you figure that?

Well, it largely depends on the motives and awareness of the person. Ghandi is a good example---how self-serving was he?

An atheist who pulls someone from a wrecked car and leaves before anyone can get his name---getting no attention or recognition for this act---whom is he serving?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:Are you saying that teachers don’t profit in any way from teaching?

No: I'm saying they do not do it for money.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Hitler’s desire to wipe the Jewish race from off the planet was his idea of bringing peace to humanity.

How do you know this?

From my study, he wanted to subdue it, control it, and enslave those he deemed inferior; "peace" didn't enter into it.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Christian’s glean from Jesus’ words anything that helps promote mindlessness – which is their idea of bringing peace to humanity. Both are ego-feeding and self-serving.

Of course Christians feed their egos---the entire "reward in heaven" deal is about what they can get for doing "the right things." When they give to charity, it's not because they're caring and altruistic: they're serving themselves ultimately by buying their way into heaven with good deeds.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: Hades isn’t discussing the nature of existence - that’s on another thread. Hades point is that egotism underlies all human action – which is a valid argument.

It might be valid if he stated it: "Many people who seek wisdom seem very similar to those who seek riches."

Then he might have been onto something.

But he didn't: he stated categorically, and erroneously, that "The Search" for wisdom is no different than the seeking of gold and money and things.

That is not a valid argument---it's a sweeping generalization out of ignorance at best. (And a topic invented for some other agenda at worst---probably the equivalent of going to a Simpsons fan website and making a forum thread saying, "People who watch the Simpsons are dumb.")

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: I wonder why all the wise men you know don’t go about calling themselves “Wisemen”? Are they embarrassed by their wisdom?

I don't know. Perhaps they simply don't like boasting?

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:The point Hades is making is that both activities are products of the ego. Your “Man A and B” examples have done nothing to dissuade anyone from that point of view.

Obviously: neither does his "Man A and B" examples, in that case---and that's the whole point, his argument is flawed.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: No – once again you are way off target. Hades correctly states that there is “nothing we are supposed to do”: that is, there is no right and wrong; no good and bad. People are driven by their egos to find happiness wherever they can.

Well, I disagree. That may cover most people but not all.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The way you describe ‘conscience’ also makes it a plaything for the ego, for you have it acting according to what is “right”, instead of acting according to what is true.

Everything in us can be twisted into the ego's plaything, until it's denied.

The right brain's core ethics is practically a tool for discrimination---telling one thing from another (A is A and is not B)---which gets validated on the other side (the logical part of the left brain), and here's where errors crop up, because the left brain is constantly interpreting for the almost entirely mute right brain (which knows that what is true and what is right are the same, which gets muddled by the left half of the brain).

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The list of people you gave exemplifies Hades point perfectly, as they are definitely “all essentially the same” – for each one was completely at the mercy of their ego.

How precisely was Ghandi "at the mercy of his ego?"

Sue Hindmarsh wrote: The main argument against Hades’ idea is that once a person becomes conscious of their own lack of an inherent nature, they can never again be completely under the sway of the ego. This means that they can act according to their wisdom, and even call themselves “Wisemen” (if they considered it beneficial to do so) – all without the ego playing a part in any of it. (*)This means that wise people are indeed different from other people.

-
Sue

Strange--Ghandi, Buddha, and Jesus went about that differently. But, I suppose, whatever works best for you.

(*) Yes, and they tend to be humble and giving, as well.