GENIUS FORUMS

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Everyone has a vague notion of suffering and deceives himself mostly out of that notion (justifying). A real philosopher starts with a more distinct notion and in that sense the suffering of each human pushes this individual into further inquiries.

As in, one becomes a 'real philosopher' first, and then one recognizes this. So they couldn't possibly be pushed to such recognition by suffering -- the said recognition is what exposes such suffering. Pursuing philosophy causes (or explicates, pick your poison) suffering, not the other way around.

Which was exactly what I said about Buddha, you bloody idiot -- that even if you argue that his suffering was far greater, because as a philosopher he recognized suffering with much more clarity, then you are still assuming that his becoming a philosopher preceded recognizing such suffering. He started thinking, and then recognized all the suffering going on, and his contribution to it.

You could argue that his initial recognition of suffering was just a seed, that he wasn't a real philosopher yet; but philosophy is love of wisdom, not possession of wisdom. Wisdom is a lifelong journey. What distinguishes a philosopher is that he seeks it, not that he has it -- and Buddha could have only recognized this subtler suffering if he had sought to look beyond the vanity of daily life. By virtue of actually looking deeper, he was already a philosopher, which necessarily preceded his actually recognizing the subtler forms of suffering.

The idea is that the philosopher tries to find out the truth about suffering, his own and that of others. In a way he chases after it and in the process suffers probably more than if he wouldn't chase the truth.

Right. He becomes the philosopher and then experiences all this extra suffering. The extra suffering doesn't push him to become a philosopher.

So you criticize Uni for not going far enough?

No, for being a hypocrite without willpower but with an abundant desire to invent elaborate excuses and an ample willingness to make others pay for his problems.

Victor, don't you think you've paraded your bullying character around enough? Isn't your ego satisfied yet? No? Okay, carry on, then. Go ahead and call someone like Philo "a little bitch." Your loss. What you fail to realize is that the lunch money you've taken from the other kids on the playground is worth much less than the price you pay for it. That's why most bullies grow up. But with you, something went wrong. A pity. I wonder what made you this way? Were you called fat, or maybe nerdy? Didn't fit in? Too smart and no good with anything that really matters to a kid? No good with the girls, perhaps? Were you ridiculed by your little classmates and told by your parents "they are just jealous?" Did you embrace knowledge as a means to reassert your worth and set yourself above your tormentors permanently?

Yeah, I'd imagine that was it, or something close enough. People don't turn out like you by accident. And now you just can't stop doing it. Hey, I can relate. That sort of thing made me an asshole, too - but the difference between us is that I realize being an asshole is a negative thing, while you embrace it. I've had three years of therapy at my own request to help me stop being the kind of asshole who treats others like shit for egotistical purposes. Three years of my time and thousands of taxpayer dollars to stop being like you. 100 dollars an hour for an hour every week to slowly and painfully change my personality from yours to that of those you ridicule - like Philo, who is a role model to me in terms of interacting with others. You might want to think about that for a little while.

But I suppose you'll just deny it, and say that I'm way off. None of that ever happened, it has nothing to do with the way you are, and all I've done is reveal personal information about myself, and so on and so on. Yeah, that's expected. But I know it or something functionally equivalent did happen, because I know how people get this way. It doesn't "just happen." You wanted to play the psychoanalysis game, so there you have it. So sad what this world does to people. In a few hundred years, things will be better, and no one will have to turn out like you.

Class dismissed.

I would be extremely embarrassed by that post if it had come from me, Unidian.

Do you seriously think you've nailed Victor's psychology with it? Not from where I stand.

And if you ever called me "Apple Dumpling," I'd punch you in the face. (Fuck's sake!)

Oh, BTW, I still have you on ignore. I only saw you call Philo a "little bitch" because I clicked one of your posts out of curiosity. I won't make that mistake again, and this will be the only time I personally address you in this thread.

Get help, Victor. Or not. It's your choice. Either way, you are no longer a child and you deserve to be who you choose to be. Choose wisely.

Unidian,

Is that all you can do -- spend three paragraphs calling me a bully?.. What happened to the wonderful 'ignore' function? Not really ignoring me, are you?.. :D

I don't give a fuck whether you think I am a bully. I know that you are simply projecting, because you really are one, and weak as all bullies really are beneath the lies and the bluster -- and you bully with your fists too, not just words. You resent me, and you know the real reason: my life is not controlled by fear.

Once again, all you can do is whine and self-justify and seek excuses for your failure. When the time had come to act, to liberate yourself, to change your life and run free and grow -- you blinked, time and time again; and now you blame the world for it, just as you blame the world for everything else. All your failures, all your weaknesses, all your deeply held and carefully nurtured fears and hatreds -- they are all the world's fault.

Anything but facing yourself honestly, eh?..

The thing about this debate that makes me the most uncomfortable is that both Nat and Vic are good philosophers who are more than capable of producing solid arguments when they aren't bickering with each other.

I'm sure whoever got in the middle of this argument felt pretty uncomfortable too:

Plato: "Diogenes, if you knew how to entertain kings, you wouldn't have to wash your own vegetables."
Diogenes: "Plato, if you knew how to wash your own vegetables, you wouldn't have to entertain kings."

Leyla,

I would be extremely embarrassed by that post if it had come from me, Unidian.

I'm sure you would. But it didn't.

Do you seriously think you've nailed Victor's psychology with it?

Yep.

Not from where I stand.

I doubt you stand in a position to know. But that's fine. It is what it is.

And if you ever called me "Apple Dumpling," I'd punch you in the face. (Fuck's sake!)

Good for you. But you'll never be in that position, which I'm sure is good news to both of us.

I think if you'd nailed his psychology (and, perhaps in doing so, precisely your own) this thing between you wouldn't persist.

But, you're the wise man. Carry on.

The wise man? Nah. I don't claim that particular ego badge. Wise enough to assert my that my own views have some relevance? Obviously. If I didn't think that, I'd have nothing to say. But "wise" in some free-floating, absolute sense? Nah. I have plenty to learn, and much more importantly, plenty to un-learn. The Taoist parable of the overflowing cup might apply. I don't claim emptiness, but I do try to keep some room in my cup.

I'm flattered that you upgraded me to a "man," though. Wasn't I a woman last time we spoke? :p

Unidian wrote:What you fail to realize is that the lunch money you've taken from the other kids on the playground is worth much less than the price you pay for it.

Can you elaborate?

Unidian wrote:Were you called fat, or maybe nerdy? Didn't fit in? Too smart and no good with anything that really matters to a kid? No good with the girls, perhaps? Were you ridiculed by your little classmates and told by your parents "they are just jealous?" Did you embrace knowledge as a means to reassert your worth and set yourself above your tormentors permanently?

What else is philosophy, the quest for some higher truth and meaning in one's lacking life? ;)

Unidian wrote:but the difference between us is that I realize being an asshole is a negative thing, while you embrace it.

What is wrong with being an asshole? It appears it goes against your moral sentiments. You feel the need to do "good" for society or at least not to do any "bad". The lunch money is not worth it because you feel guilty, but you shouldn't assume everyone else is burdened by a similar weakness.

Unidian wrote:I've had three years of therapy at my own request to help me stop being the kind of asshole who treats others like shit for egotistical purposes.

Not sure that worked.

Neil,

Can you elaborate?

Sure. When one bullies others, he gains a sense of power and superiority which is a gratifying to the ego. This is ostensibly a benefit to the self-image. But the cost of such behavior is in alienating a large number of people who might have had something to offer. One can never be sure of how much one has sacrificed in this manner, of course, so it's easy to tell ourselves that the people have been alienated had nothing to offer and are of no consequence. But it it a rationalization nonetheless.

What is wrong with being an asshole? It appears it goes against your moral sentiments. You feel the need to do "good" for society or at least not to do any "bad". The lunch money is not worth it because you feel guilty, but you shouldn't assume everyone else is burdened by a similar weakness.

What you advocate is sociopathy. I have no answer for it and neither does anyone else. Naturally, if all moral frameworks are disregarded, no argument against a socipathic approach can be mounted beyond the practical consequences (getting caught and so forth). There is no answer for sociopathy other than removal from society.

This is why trolls are generally banned from message boards, incidentally.

Not sure that worked.

These things take time. Better to make the effort than not, but if your worldview is sociopathic in nature, it would be impossible to convince you of that.

Wise enough to assert my that my own views have some relevance?

Well, sure. Even an apple dumpling asserts by its flavours and aromas that it has some relevance. There's a certain wisdom to that, I guess. Like the fact that if it continues to do so, it will surely get eaten.

I'm flattered that you upgraded me to a "man," though. Wasn't I a woman last time we spoke?

Yes. You see how generous I am?

Unidian wrote:Sure. When one bullies others, he gains a sense of power and superiority which is a gratifying to the ego. This is ostensibly a benefit to the self-image. But the cost of such behavior is in alienating a large number of people who might have had something to offer. One can never be sure of how much one has sacrificed in this manner, of course, so it's easy to tell ourselves that the people have been alienated had nothing to offer and are of no consequence. But it it a rationalization nonetheless.

Which of course has nothing to do with the current situation. I don't attack people just because -- I do so when there is a specific reason, such as your proclamations about your entitlement to welfare. I attack bad reasoning and bad policy regardless of the benefits i could derive from the purveyors thereof.

It's called principle, child. Incidentally, it has won me far more friends than a more myopically selfish approach would have. You wouldn't understand, because you don't have principles -- just excuses.

What you are really saying is that you resent of the fact that I want nothing from you.

What you advocate is sociopathy.

it's the other way around. Sociopaths tend to be charming and pleasant, especially the smart sociopaths -- it's more profitable that way.

Anyway, it's funny to hear you speak of sociopathy. Sociopathy is the absence of one of the fundamental impulses which undergird human society -- empathy. You, dude, are utterly missing another -- the sense of fairness, as I had amply demonstrated*. There's no name for it, because unlike sociopaths, people lacking sense of fairness rarely commit massive crimes. They merely make the lives of everyone around them miserable, and corrupt the society from the ground up.

* As evidenced by the following:

• You proclaim that others owe you a living
• You assert your right to drive without a license and make others pay for the damage you could possibly cause them ('cuz you are poor but you really want to drive, and others' suffering and financial damages don't matter)
• you have not a slightest problem about eschewing hygiene, thus being a free-rider on others' hygienic practices
• and you would admittedly act as a normal person with depressed frontal lobe function vis-a-vis unfair deals, as was demonstrated by a rather interesting discussion about a very telling psychological experiment.

Unidian wrote:Sure. When one bullies others, he gains a sense of power and superiority which is a gratifying to the ego.

When one helps others one gains a sense of importance and superiority and also imagines the other to be greatful towards him -- this is perhaps more gratifying to the ego. Everything we do is in fact selfish, whether we realize it or not.

Unidian wrote:This is ostensibly a benefit to the self-image. But the cost of such behavior is in alienating a large number of people who might have had something to offer. One can never be sure of how much one has sacrificed in this manner, of course, so it's easy to tell ourselves that the people have been alienated had nothing to offer and are of no consequence. But it it a rationalization nonetheless.

I agree that we shouldn't bully others when there is a more rational option.

Unidian wrote:What you advocate is sociopathy. I have no answer for it and neither does anyone else. Naturally, if all moral frameworks are disregarded, no argument against a socipathic approach can be mounted beyond the practical consequences (getting caught and so forth). There is no answer for sociopathy other than removal from society.

These "sociopaths" are harmful -- all masters must be removed by the overabundance of peasants. This is the Christian/moral/democratic way.

vicdan wrote:it's the other way around. Sociopaths tend to be charming and pleasant, especially the smart sociopaths -- it's more profitable that way.

Absolutely! My favourite case in point being Hannibal Lecter.

vicdan wrote:Anyway, it's funny to hear you speak of sociopathy. Sociopathy is the absence of one of the fundamental impulses which undergird human society -- empathy.

Don't all great people lack empathy? We have really overdone ourselves these days with all the fright about "sociopaths", those immoral satanic criminals.

vicdan wrote: * As evidenced by the following:

• You proclaim that others owe you a living
• You assert your right to drive without a license and make others pay for the damage you could possibly cause them ('cuz you are poor but you really want to drive, and others' suffering and financial damages don't matter)
• you have not a slightest problem about eschewing hygiene, thus being a free-rider on others' hygienic practices
• and you would admittedly act as a normal person with depressed frontal lobe function vis-a-vis unfair deals, as was demonstrated by a rather interesting discussion about a very telling psychological experiment.

I am really not against any of these, why shouldn't one take advantage of others? This is called natural competition. However I disagree with the idea that one ought to be unemployed or that one's integrity or worth should be judged by their employment history.

When one helps others one gains a sense of importance and superiority and also imagines the other to be greatful towards him -- this is perhaps more gratifying to the ego. Everything we do is in fact selfish, whether we realize it or not.

That's valid enough as far as it goes. But it's a fairly academic distinction. The issue of motivation can be argued from numerous angles, but the fact remains that one either derives satisfaction from helping others or from belittling them. It could be argued that the ego is generally involved in both activities. I wouldn't dispute that, but it has no bearing on the fact that one approach is embraced by human beings while the other is rejected by them, with all the attendant consequences (known and unknown).

I agree that we shouldn't bully others when there is a more rational option.

Bullying is inherently irrational because it has the potential to damage other members of the species and therefore impede both the progress and the survivability of the gene pool as a whole.

These "sociopaths" are harmful -- all masters must be removed by the overabundance of peasants. This is the Christian/moral/democratic way.

Ah. Read Nietzsche much?

LOL Victorious Danilchenko Baggins.

Unidian wrote:That's valid enough as far as it goes. But it's a fairly academic distinction. The issue of motivation can be argued from numerous angles, but the fact remains that one either derives satisfaction from helping others or from belittling them. It could be argued that the ego is generally involved in both activities.

We see eye to eye then.

Unidian wrote:I wouldn't dispute that, but it has no bearing on the fact that one approach is embraced by human beings while the other is rejected by them, with all the attendant consequences (known and unknown).

One is embraced by... the herd... while the other is looked down upon by... the herd. Since when do geniuses adopt the values of the herd? I would be fine with pretending to share the values when it is rational to do so in our overly moralistic society. (This morality is an element of Buddhism and David and Kevin's teachings I realize. I think they just want to hold the peace and that actually going against the herd would cause them suffering, which is what they are trying to run away from in the first place.)

NM: I agree that we shouldn't bully others when there is a more rational option.

Nat: Bullying is inherently irrational because it has the potential to damage other members of the species and therefore impede both the progress and the survivability of the gene pool as a whole.

This is irrational sir. How does the gene pool "progress"? Surely by the best genes dominating it, which means that the greatest must dominate over the weaker, must out-compete them. Life is death. As one grows another dies. As one rises another falls. Not wanting to damage other members of the species is no more than a weak person's concealed desires not to be damaged himself. Since he is unable to defend himself he wants to alleviate all masterful forces that may threaten him. Once again I wouldn't place any genius in this category.

Unidian wrote:Ah. Read Nietzsche much?

Yess. :)

I saw some of the material Neil quoted. Victor mischaracterizes (or intentionally misrepresents) my disdain for excessive private property and certain other unconventional qualities as sociopathic behavior. But sociopaths are almost never socialists (unless perhaps it is politically expedient). There is an enormous difference between a sociopathic approach, which disregards all moral standards, and my approach, which is based on different moral standards. Victor fails to understand that I think wealthy people are just as immoral as he thinks I am. Of course depriving them of wealth through my actions is of no concern to me, because I do not believe they are morally entitled to any excess wealth in the first place. They have taken more than their fair (read: morally justified) share to begin with. My right to drive supercedes their right to not have to pay increased insurance premiums not because I'm sociopathic, but for the exact opposite reason - the subjectively percieved utility of me driving is much greater than the subjectivel utility of their excessive wealth. That is a utilitarian moral calculation, whether one agrees with it or not. To not be allowed to drive impacts me greatly, while paying an extra $30 a month is no big deal for those who run the tiny risk of being hit by me. Beyond that, to deprive the citizens of "takerville" of excessive wealth, in my view, is a morally positive action if said wealth is equitably redistributed and a morally neutral action if it is not. That is a position which involves morality at a fundamental level, whether or not one agrees with its conclusions. The idea that I am a sociopath is one Victor has thrown around in every previous discussion of this nature, and it has gained zero traction due to its absurdity.

Sociopaths don't argue for a more just and equitable world. The "sociopath" charge is just an trollish slur intended to provoke a reaction. Victor knows as well as anyone that there is obviously no truth to it whatsoever.

Neil,

One is embraced by... the herd... while the other is looked down upon by... the herd. Since when do geniuses adopt the values of the herd? I would be fine with pretending to share the values when it is rational to do so in our overly moralistic society. (This morality is an element of Buddhism and David and Kevin's teachings I realize. I think they just want to hold the peace and that actually going against the herd would cause them suffering, which is what they are trying to run away from in the first place.)

But "the herd" are not the only ones who reject bullying behavior. Had some heckler come crashing into one of the Buddha's lecture shouting all sorts of abuse, I'm sure he would have been shown the road. It is human nature to reject such behavior. The much-touted "herd" / "sage" disticntion has no relevance here, in my view, except that a "sage" might kick the heckler out politely.

This is irrational sir. How does the gene pool "progress"? Surely by the best genes dominating it, which means that the greatest must dominate over the weaker, must out-compete them. Life is death. As one grows another dies. As one rises another falls. Not wanting to damage other members of the species is no more than a weak person's concealed desires not to be damaged himself. Since he is unable to defend himself he wants to alleviate all masterful forces that may threaten him. Once again I wouldn't place any genius in this category.

"Progress" is entirely defined by one's values. The "best" genes dominating the gene pool is meaningless if "best" is left undefined. And since "best" is a value-laden statement of the purest sort, what sort of gene pool (and by extension, culture) we want to promote is entirely up to us. Most people, including almost all recognized sages such as the Dalai Lama, feel that the "best" society to work toward is a deeply compassionate one which promotes the greatest quality of life for the greatest number, across the spectrum. It is almost universally agreed that a social Darwinist approach such as that employed by the Nazi party is not conducive to this. I wouldn't place any genius in the fevered scribblings of social Darwinists about "the natural right of the strong" and so forth. People with such views were once hanged at Nuremberg, which was a pretty lousy outcome even from the totally self-interested perspective.

vicdan wrote: You could argue that his initial recognition of suffering was just a seed, that he wasn't a real philosopher yet; but philosophy is love of wisdom, not possession of wisdom. Wisdom is a lifelong journey. What distinguishes a philosopher is that he seeks it, not that he has it -- and Buddha could have only recognized this subtler suffering if he had sought to look beyond the vanity of daily life. By virtue of actually looking deeper, he was already a philosopher, which necessarily preceded his actually recognizing the subtler forms of suffering.

This looks like the old debate about the chicken and the egg. Lets talk about breathing instead: imagine a person who breaths all of his life and suddenly turns his attention to his breath and starts inhaling and exhaling deeply, to study it, to understand its regularities and irregularities and how it relates to his actions and being. What caused this turn? Perhaps a bad cough or hay fever. Perhaps something else. At some point though the breathing interacts with the inquiry in a way it's hard to tell what is subject and what is object.

But you're introducing some magical moment of 'looking into' something, perhaps some property like curiosity, a 'wanting to know how it works' mentality that starts this shift in attention at some point. This is all assumption, a projection of scientific inquiry onto the philosophical domain, which is not really a surprise. I guess it could work like you said but then it's just one of the possible causes and underneath that curiosity, that desire for truth that propelled Gautama unto his supposed path surely lies just another form of suffering, another form of make-believe. The searcher still trying to escape, but he wouldn't have moved without it either.

As I think I said before, I don't see this issue as a very complicated one. I want a world where the largest possible number of people who want food, clothing, medical care, and a place to live can have those things, regardless of whether they want to work for them. But that last little bit seems to really get people going.

As I think I said before, I don't see this issue as a very complicated one. I want a world where the largest possible number of people who want food, clothing, medical care, and a place to live can have those things, regardless of whether they want to work for them. But that last little bit seems to really get people going.

Yeah, that last bit is the catch. The reason everybody chokes is that the existing moral framework of Western culture insists that self-support is morally required and to be supported by others is morally objectionable. This stems from the Puritan work ethic, among other antiquated values. Naturally, other moral frameworks are possible, and in fact have existed throughout history. A culture in which "to each according to need, from each according to temperament" is not only feasible and potentially desirable, it has already been practiced in numerous native cultures.

Outside the sphere of social Darwinist arguments which hold (in one form or another) that the economically unproductive "deserve" elimination, the vehemence with which ordinary people reject publicly-subsidized voluntary unemployment has little to do with rational considerations and much more to do with being steeped in ubiquitous conscious and subconscious cultural indoctrination by the prevailing moral framework. Such indoctrination begins at the earliest possible age and is continuously reinforced by educators, peers, families, governments, miscellaneous authority figures, the media, and social institutions of every type. That is how one of many possible moral frameworks eventually becomes the "prevailing" one, and it means that promoting an alternative view of morality can be a hell of a task.

Unfortunately for us, the moral framework in which every human being is entitled to the necessities of a decent life as an inalienable human right is very much opposed to prevailing Western culture. The profound degree to which it is opposed is evident in the shrill and hectoring tone of the objections to it. Unless the "technological singularity" intervenes, it will be at least a hundred years before this sort of thing can be openly discussed without generating excessive conflict.

I think it goes deeper than culture, actually. In the animal kingdom, animals who can't or won't obtain food for themselves or others are generally left behind to die. For non-human animals, not working means forfeiting the protection of the group and probably one's life. I think it may be almost "instinctual" to revile non-workers.

But the fact that other animals do something doesn't mean it's right for humans to do it.