New Social Thread

[JontRevolting]

All you people need to calm down and take life as it comes, every human has an internal crisis of sorts around this age ("this age" being 21-30) but good news, most people survive and become real adults!

Here's a thing it maybe will get a hell of alot worse after 30,unless you get married and settle down,even then i'm sure the life of a married child raising domestic is'nt that great.Life just gets harder as you get older.I'm 35 and cannot wait untill I turn 40,financial security and none of the remnants of youth which persist throughout your 30's.

 

[Blind Guardian]

It's neurotic to focus so much on age this and age that. It's a number; do whatever the heck you want at what age you want, as long as you feel that it makes you evolve as a person.

 

[waif]

Since WAIF thinks anyone not in college is old as fuck

I was kidding. But yes, you enter a different phase of life once you leave school.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Don't be a tard, you're supposed to be of superior intellect, where did I say "do not make lifelong efforts at self-improvement and awareness?" Hey guess what, I almost guarantee everyone on this site feels the same way you do (about different things probably but it's all the same shit). My message is "chill out and enjoy life, you're in good company" - not "you should be as dumb as everyone else, fuck classics, go watch Jersey Shore!"

This is about the same way I feel about Jeremy's post. Chill the fuck out, dude.

 

[King Richard]

I was kidding. But yes, you enter a different phase of life once you leave school.

Ya, it's called reality breh.

This is about the same way I feel about Jeremy's post. Chill the fuck out, dude.

Agreed.

 

[Zephyrus]

Thanks, guys. Yes, I've calmed down but I don't take back anything I said. Won't respond to any comments dissing any of my bros in the School of Athens.

Went to bed sober for the first time in a couple months. Couldn't fall asleep till 3 AM. My mind is just too restless. It's a start.

 

[damnromulans]

Sobriety is a step. Hope you come to terms with stuff, anxiety is weakness.

 

[Zephyrus]

Yeah, gotta detox all this THC out of my brain and maybe it will learn how to fall asleep on its own again.

 

[Einherjar86]

That opinion you are answering is the general gist of the Republic (Plato in general), and to a lesser degree, echoes of Aristotle.
That Zeph is puppeting this position is not surprising given his narrow focus, but it is ignorance rooted in the early, fledgling philosophic endeavors.

It is the the exact same mindset that defends the worst sorts of abuse of both mankind and nature.

It's dismissive to think of them as fledging and sophomoric, don't make that mistake.

 

[Zephyrus]

But they didn't have iPhones and Wikipedia. Therefore they must have been dumbfucks.

 

[King Richard]

Yeah, gotta detox all this THC out of my brain and maybe it will learn how to fall asleep on its own again.

wat

 

[Dak]

It's dismissive to think of them as fledging and sophomoric, don't make that mistake.

I was giving them that benefit of the doubt over their bad philosophic points, not merely dismissing it because it's "old".

 

[Einherjar86]

Their "bad philosophy" is the result of an entirely different cosmological perspective and understanding of the human subject. It's unfair to call their form of logic bad or flawed; it's actually no more flawed than the logic/reason that we use today.

 

[Dak]

What are you talking about exactly? My understanding of ancient/classical philosophy is pretty weak, but what dak and i were responding to initially was Jeremy's claim that oppression "makes great things possible" in society. I don't care what cosmological perspective the Greeks/Romans had, that kind of thinking is a mistaken, dangerous and morally disgusting denial of the potential for ................institutions to bring humanity out of the state of nature.

Mostly this. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt that it would be nearly impossible for them to "know better" due to the lack of available written history, variety of perspectives, and infancy of philosophical thought itself, etc.

However, to say "it's all the same" is an intellectually dishonest position to take here. You wouldn't say the same thing about the actors hauling you off under orders given by people who fashion and fancy themselves as "philosopher kings" or just "destined to rule"/"divine", or other wise "special".

 

[Einherjar86]

What are you talking about exactly? My understanding of ancient/classical philosophy is pretty weak, but what dak and i were responding to initially was Jeremy's claim that oppression "makes great things possible" in society. I don't care what cosmological perspective the Greeks/Romans had, that kind of thinking is a mistaken, dangerous and morally disgusting denial of the potential for political institutions to bring humanity out of the state of nature.

I think the claim that "oppression makes great things possible" is an extrapolation from the original ideas of Heraclitus and Zeno that change comes from opposition. Granted, the moral justification of a slave-based system is something we frown upon today; but back then, in a society where subservience to your polis was considered the highest priority, being a slave was a very important role. It might not have seemed that way to the slaves themselves; but those who subjugated them saw this as the natural order of the universe.

However, to say "it's all the same" is an intellectually dishonest position to take here. You wouldn't say the same thing about the actors hauling you off under orders given by people who fashion and fancy themselves as "philosopher kings" or just "destined to rule"/"divine", or other wise "special".

You're right that I wouldn't simply stand by quietly while this was done to me; but that doesn't change the fact that I can try and sympathize with their position. "Morality" differs from culture to culture; so to critique their actions based on what I perceive as the morality of my own liberty is to make the same mistake my enslavers make.

 

[Dak]

I think the claim that "oppression makes great things possible" is an extrapolation from the original ideas of Heraclitus and Zeno that change comes from opposition. Granted, the moral justification of a slave-based system is something we frown upon today; but back then, in a society where subservience to your polis was considered the highest priority, being a slave was a very important role. It might not have seemed that way to the slaves themselves; but those who subjugated them saw this as the natural order of the universe.

You're right that I wouldn't simply stand by quietly while this was done to me; but that doesn't change the fact that I can try and sympathize with their position. "Morality" differs from culture to culture; so to critique their actions based on what I perceive as the morality of my own liberty is to make the same mistake my enslavers make.

This misses the point. "Morality" is very much a red herring in this situation, particularly due to all the subjective connotations. The desire for good/fair treatment by others is universal across time and culture, as is the desire for a relative to advance at the expense of the rest.

 

[Einherjar86]

This misses the point. "Morality" is very much a red herring in this situation, particularly due to all the subjective connotations. The desire for good/fair treatment by others is universal across time and culture, as is the desire for a relative to advance at the expense of the rest.

How does what I said miss the point?

The Ancient Greeks needed to justify their subjugation of slaves; their conception of the universe provides the basis for this justification. They perceived this as part of a natural order, the kosmos. Attempting to alter the natural order is morally reprehensible in Greek society.

Everyone desires good and fair treatment, but what the subjugated and the subjugators see as "good and fair" differs depending on their respective positions. Both attempt to morally justify their position. I'm aware of the error of this rationalization, but that doesn't mean both parties aren't guilty of it.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I can't remember any widely renowned thinker of recent history comparing slavery to capitalism and concluding that slavery is a preferable economic system. From what little i know of greek/roman philosophy it seems to me just very naive and out-of-date compared to modern philosophy. If you really want to debate this shit though, i'll totally pull out my old high school philosophy textbook and create a "Capitalism vs Slavery" thread for us.

 

[Dak]

How does what I said miss the point?

The Ancient Greeks needed to justify their subjugation of slaves; their conception of the universe provides the basis for this justification. They perceived this as part of a natural order, the kosmos. Attempting to alter the natural order is morally reprehensible in Greek society.

Everyone desires good and fair treatment, but what the subjugated and the subjugators see as "good and fair" differs depending on their respective positions. Both attempt to morally justify their position. I'm aware of the error of this rationalization, but that doesn't mean both parties aren't guilty of it.

Rationalizing bad behavior is normal. That doesn't make it acceptable or grant it equal standing with actual intellectual endeavors, other than tipping the hat to some of the first penned attempts at a body of theory, and forcing people to think and defend their thoughts, instead of just accepting. However, this is really all that the early philosophers did. They did not attempt to stray far from the cultural box, they instead tried to justify the status quo based on numerous assumptions drawn from the said status quo (which was, of course, favorable to themselves). This did lay the foundation though for future work to go beyond this infantile approach.

 

[Einherjar86]

I can't remember any widely renowned thinker of recent history comparing slavery to capitalism and concluding that slavery is a preferable economic system. From what little i know of greek/roman philosophy it seems to me just very naive and out-of-date compared to modern philosophy. If you really want to debate this shit though, i'll totally pull out my old high school philosophy textbook and create a "Capitalism vs Slavery" thread for us.

Well, I think it's pretty safe to say that if there was a philosopher who did say that, we'd never hear about him/her. That's a pretty ridiculous claim to make, and our culture today completely eschews such a belief. In a way, contemporary philosophy is always constrained by the culture in which it works.

I think I'm being misunderstood, because I'm not advocating slavery over capitalism. However, I think it's presumptuous to think that human liberty, as a value, is necessarily universal. I think that what we perceive as the "value" of human liberty is simply the drive, or instinct, of living things to survive. When we project a value onto that, we're projecting a moral quantification onto basic biological instincts. It's flawed, however, to believe that every culture valorizes liberty in the way we do.

Rationalizing bad behavior is normal. That doesn't make it acceptable or grant it equal standing with actual intellectual endeavors, other than tipping the hat to some of the first penned attempts at a body of theory, and forcing people to think and defend their thoughts, instead of just accepting. However, this is really all that the early philosophers did. They did not attempt to stray far from the cultural box, they instead tried to justify the status quo based on numerous assumptions drawn from the said status quo (which was, of course, favorable to themselves). This did lay the foundation though for future work to go beyond this infantile approach.

In a way, all philosophy attempts to maintain the status quo, even while appearing to work against it. Philosophy (and, by extension, logic itself) is conditioned by the culture in which it develops. I find the idea that there is something universal about the valorization of liberty and the nuclear human subject to be mistaken. It is very clear that people did not always understand human subjectivity in this way.