#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


Nihilism and Horror Philosophy
03-27-2017, 10:24 PM #1
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
In my experience of studying philosophy, it seems one of the most disliked positions has been nihilism and post modernism, even if the former isn't really that much different than regular old skepticism. In addition to that which has been called nihilism there seems to be a newer version of skepticism/ nihilism called horror philosophy I believe based off of the work of Lovecraft's and Eugene Thacker's work, which basically asks questions such as whether the universe really doesn't care about us and/or if we are not really the special snowflakes that we believe ourselves to be.

The reason that I'm even bothering to mention this is that it seems to be a common theme in popular culture and that it is used shows such as 'Rick and Morty' and might be something that is increasing theme in our society; even if it is unpopular in academic circles. Anyways I wonder what some other people think about it.

Also here are some links to some stuff on the subject:

YouTube : The Philosophy of Rick and Morty


Eugene Thacker
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Thacker

In the Dust of This Planet: Horror of Philosophy
https://www.amazon.com/Dust-This-Planet-...184694676X
03-28-2017, 07:57 AM #2
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
That's sorta' tough regarding special snowflakes...
On the one hand, war, disease, famine, death, bad things happening to good people would seem to put the kibosh entertaining any such options in a rational sense.
Then there are the well known quantum physics experiments that indicates that we, at least to some degree, control our reality via observation.
It's quite a conundrum.

wonder.gif
Anonymous Kritter Show this Post
03-28-2017, 09:17 AM #3
Anonymous Kritter Incognito Anonymous
 
spock.gif
03-28-2017, 09:06 PM #4
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-28-2017, 07:57 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  That's sorta' tough regarding special snowflakes...
On the one hand, war, disease, famine, death, bad things happening to good people would seem to put the kibosh entertaining any such options in a rational sense.
But that is almost exactly my point, what science and the rest of our knowledge doesn't really translate very well into the story we are told as kids and by religion/society. I know as an adult we get too burned out to care that it is all wrong, but shouldn't there be someone at the switch who breaks out the whiteout and fixes such things as they happen?

Also thanks for knowing a bit about what I'm talking about. On a 'philosophy forum' where I more or less posted the same thing they are merely splitting hairs about nihilism/existentialism, and using Rick and Morty as an example instead of focusing on more important stuff.

Here is the link to the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussio...philosophy

(03-28-2017, 07:57 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Then there are the well known quantum physics experiments that indicates that we, at least to some degree, control our reality via observation.
It's quite a conundrum.
I remember spending nearly a day trying to wrap my head around that problem, and to the best of my knowledge it doesn't really work the way they claim.

As a slot machine and computer technician, the idea of a device that gives two different answers depending on whether you look at the results sounds implausible. I mean we use the term 'PFM' (pure f*(k1ng magic) whenever we can get a device to work for some reason it wouldn't work a moment ago and I can't count the number of times would fix a machine by giving it a good kicking, but this is different.

I'm no quantum physicist but I'm sure you can jury rig one of the machine they where using for testing to operate in a way contrary to the theory that our 'mind' is affecting the readings. Since the readings are always behaving like a wave when we are looking at it or a particle when we are not looking at it (or vice versa I can't remember which it is), all you got to do is get a machine to do is both observe the behave AND collect statistical data on it's behavior. If the statistical readings tells us it is behaving as if it does when we are looking at it (if we tell the device to "forgot" individual readings), then it is an issue with the device measuring/collecting the information as it passes through; which is almost 100% likely the case. If we get statistical readings telling us we are NOT looking at it, we can tell the machine to dump the individual readings so that we can actually what is going on; which could get weird depending on how it happens.

At either rate you either get a machine to collect individual readings and dumping them if they act like we are reading them or saving them if they don't. Since the system SUPPOSEDLY is behaving depending on whether we observe a state of particle wave before or after a certain phase of the system (and not just on whether we are measuring the state), we can force the system to tell us whether it is the actual measuring of the state that is causing the issue (which I'm sure is 99.99% likely), or if something really weird is going on. Either way we got our answer.
03-29-2017, 12:30 AM #5
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,396 Threads:1,439 Joined:Feb 2011
(03-28-2017, 09:06 PM)dclements Wrote:  Also thanks for knowing a bit about what I'm talking about. On a 'philosophy forum' where I more or less posted the same thing they are merely splitting hairs about nihilism/existentialism, and using Rick and Morty as an example instead of focusing on more important stuff.

Can't ever say I've ever even Googled philosophy forums chuckle.gif but philosophy interests me as glimpses into the way how others think. Sadly. more often than not it's a lot of hot air and fluffy bunnies, I far prefer Mel Brooks as a stand up Philosopher as I've seldom gained anything from others philosophical musings aside from the time it took to hear/read them.
That stated, I enjoy others thoughts on all manner of things, even though it may not work for me, it doesn't mean you're wrong.

(03-28-2017, 09:06 PM)dclements Wrote:  I remember spending nearly a day trying to wrap my head around that problem, and to the best of my knowledge it doesn't really work the way they claim.

It's the study of quantum states.
Simultaneous existences.
0 and 1 exist at the same time.

wonder.gif
03-29-2017, 01:09 AM #6
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-29-2017, 12:30 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  
(03-28-2017, 09:06 PM)dclements Wrote:  Also thanks for knowing a bit about what I'm talking about. On a 'philosophy forum' where I more or less posted the same thing they are merely splitting hairs about nihilism/existentialism, and using Rick and Morty as an example instead of focusing on more important stuff.

Can't ever say I've ever even Googled philosophy forums chuckle.gif  but philosophy interests me as glimpses into the way how others think. Sadly. more often than not it's a lot of hot air and fluffy bunnies, I far prefer Mel Brooks as a stand up Philosopher as I've seldom gained anything from others philosophical musings aside from the time it took to hear/read them.
That stated, I enjoy others thoughts on all manner of things, even though it may not work for me, it doesn't mean you're wrong.

(03-28-2017, 09:06 PM)dclements Wrote:  I remember spending nearly a day trying to wrap my head around that problem, and to the best of my knowledge it doesn't really work the way they claim.

It's the study of quantum states.
Simultaneous existences.
0 and 1 exist at the same time.
Yeah I'm burned out a bit on the whole philosophy thing after the forum I was on for years stopped working and everyone pretty much abandoned it. Much of the time it really isn't any better then the comment section you see on any site such as YouTube, but sometimes there are people there who actually study philosophy and know something about it.

I sort of know what you are talking about how they describe it in theory but sometimes the theory and the nuances of what does what in reality needs something..more. It is kind of like when they where being to build the particle accelerator in Europe and one of the scientist make a joke about how there is just a very slight possibility of them creating microscopic black holes and that it is mostly likely that even if they where created that they would just 'evaporate' before really doing anything. While it did make the article the journalist a little more exciting to read, it also made some people nervous over what was the actual possibility of them accidentally creating a black hole in their lab that didn't just evaporate as soon as it got created. Luckily the odds where near zero since you need an object with the mass the size of at least the moon in order to create a real black hole that won't immediately evaporate; or at least I think it is something like that. Supposedly even the very large ones evaporate over time, even if that time is near indefinite when compare it to what we think of as time.

As to the quantum state thing, I'm still musing over it. While our observations of reality may effect ourselves and reality in certain ways, the test that suggests our observation of a quantum state effects the state of the thing in question is kind of unsettling. Maybe it is just me but I'm kind of comfortable with the whole cause and effect sort of scientific relationship we usually observe while looking at things around us and anything that effected by something without a tangible cause can make someone wonder whether there is some witchcraft/magic going on. Of course may it is just because some of us have ADHD and such stuff makes some of us with ADHD have our heads go out of wack. emo-daj.gif
03-31-2017, 09:17 PM #7
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
Here is a copy of a reply post in a thread sort of similar to the "Nihilism and Horror Philosophy" where someone was asking me about religion, morality, 'good'/'evil' etc. It took a while to write and I thought it might be useful to add it to this thread as well:

================================================================================


" dclements thank you for your detailed answer, i also hope some other people would also read and contribute to this conversation."
— Override

Your welcome. :D

"You have pointed out some interesting themes where any of them i would lie to talk about, but one of the most interesting ones for me is just in your first sentence where sadly you mention that doesn't interest you much, that is the relation of good and evil with religion. If you don't mind I would like to start as beginning point on this, at least not what is good and evil in religion, but the relation of it with these terms.

The question i would have would definitely be "would there be good and evil if there was not religion and no punishment and reward for these actions after death" at all. This could be a difficult question for me to answer at once. To answer this question let's think this question first; "Which one was first in timeline: first religion or the invention of terms good and bad"? I don't think there would be any way to figure out the answer of this question also. This or alike sub-questions that would try to support answering first question will hardly bring us to a real answer, so not spending too much time on them, let's go to first question in simple way "if there was no religion, would there be good and bad?". This question is nearly impossible to answer in an absolute way cause there would be too much unknown and too many variables to consider about including human itself and relations with its social environment."
— Override

Your kind of getting into some of the over thinking of things that I usually like to avoid but I guess that is "Ok" for now. If you can try to separate your thinking into two different tasks where one task you can either ask questions and/or speculate on whatever and the other is to merely collect data without asking too many questions or try to interpret the data in any way than what it is. You can think of this as some sort of medieval form of scientific inquiry on whatever but I believe it is not that far different than how they go about things today. The purpose of such methods is to sort of take take a snapshot and preserve whatever it is being monitored before the people that are allowed to speculate on the data can molest it for their own purposes. Maybe you can envision and understand the purpose of this but I will leave it at that for now.

Anyways your question if it could be easily answer would be worthy of a few doctoral thesis for sure if it was to be done properly, but since I don't have the time or resources for that I will have to rely on a more quicker and messier method. Man most likely discovered religion/ethics right about the time he evolved from animal to be something of what we consider to be human. While it is possible for man to have do this even earlier or for animals to have kind of ethics and religion, what we consider to be "ethics" and/or "religion" is to be a uniquely human trait (at least how it is defined in Western societies) I will stick with this version of it since it is the easier thing to do and will unlikely make a difference.

I'm no anthropologist but I believe it is likely the most of the first ethical/religious type questions and actions done by early man was a cross between day to day survival ( ie. primitive pragmatism) and early ceremonies and questioning about nearly anything. It might be hard to imagine why early man would bother to bury their dead or start rituals, but if you look at Shintoism (a primitive religion still practiced in Japan) you will see how the line between religious ceremony and common, if not occasionally odd social practices (like the Shiners with their funny hats and tiny motorcycles at parades) are not that far apart. If you think of it parades while not exactly the same thing as religious ceremony they are close enough to be the same thing in certain cultures. Anyways for me they are mostly the same thing and since I doing this the quick/dirty method I'll again just leave it at that and that most if not all religious ceremonies are just a kind of social ritual of one sort or another covered with a little bit of fluff so even if we didn't have 'religions' we would still have some sort of social/religious ceremonies of one sort or another just because it is part of human nature.

Ok, at this point I'm going to have to do something to make things quicker by mentioning that my viewpoint is influenced by Julian Jaynes's "Bicameralism" and his book "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" even though I have never really read the book. To the best of my knowledge his belief was that early man had kind of a "split personality" where at some times he operated as a simple minded individual that didn't think to much for themselves (or at least even more simple minded than many simple minded people today that still do the same) and a second ego that was tied directly to the Super or "God" ego. While not really the same thing in certain insect of other than human societies there is a kind of hive mind at play. Certain individuals in the group do the actual leg work of thinking about things and other members of the hive mostly focus on carrying out the tasks that need to be done. I like to think of the thinkers as some kind of 'chiefs' (who's job is sometimes made easier by other doing most of the physical work for them) and the other people as, as well just workers or drones since Indians doesn't have a good ring to it. The funny thing is that these workers or plebs can often do the job of thinking for themselves by merely asking themselves "what would the chief tell me to do" whenever they get cut off from their tribe. Or at least they could do that kind of thing long enough until they often got reconnected with them if they knew enough about how to survive. Anyways the theory goes that this mentality fell apart as soon as tribes got much bigger and people no longer had any real "chief" to rely on to tell them what to do, or at least any person that really act like a chief when too many other people also try and pretend to be a chief. Also the theory goes that there is a residual aspect of this mentality with us, and of course if this theory is true it would do a lot to explain the what, where, when, and whys of religion but it is mostly still just a theory and I believe there is still a lot of controversy and problems with it.

However if what Julian Jaynes and Bicameralism says is mostly true than religion was created as a kind of leftover mentality to help deal with our inability to function without a hive or tribal mind. It might also help to explain a bit why human beings tend to form hierarchical if not corrupt social structures since the beginning of time but some of that would be beyond this topic. For me ad my view of things it is merely a means to explain a lot of 'fluff' with religion/ethics that I usually like to ignore and/or explain away with the excuse that it is because, well it is just seems counter-protective to me.

Another issue I will mention is the binary/false dilemma. Whenever anyone talks about "good" and "evil" they often will have the tendency to think that something has to be one or the other much like some people think some answers have to be yes or no or how Beavis and Butthead would think that something was either cool or sucks. However characteristics or attributes of something in our world is more often than not more complicated than can be merely summed up in either one or two states. Even in digital logic where circuits are built specifically for their ability to be able to represent either '0' or '1', the actual implementation/dynamics of the circuits are more complicated and messy so the idea of them being a mere bit storing either a 0 or 1 isn't the whole truth. I'm getting a little bit long winded here but the point I'm trying to make is reality is often more complicated than can be represented in simple 'good'/'evil' labeling or any other models or labeling we can think of at the moment. I could on about other fallacies and how they effect our judgement but pointing out one, along with some of the issues of how religion can effect our judgement (whether for good or bad) should do for the moment.

Ok, so after all that we are left with a simple but real question which is "What action or actions(and/or thoughts) should I take that are best for me that would allow me to have the best life possible and/or the best outcome for both me and everyone else.". You see underneath all the fluff or morality, religion, and whatever else, ethics is merely a tool we use to survive. It is really nothing more and nothing less than this, however every waking moment of your existence is governed by the problems and issues that ethics tries to grapple with so it would be hard for me to stress enough the actual importance of it when everything we do requires us fall back to our 'simple tools' in order to fix or guide things in our lives.

Another way to break it down, is that ethics (and/or religion depending on how and what you define as religion) is instrumental in not only the big questions that primitive man use to really on their chiefs for, but also their supposedly mundane tasks they did each day to survive. I guess this in a way answers your question "if there was no religion, would there be good and bad" which would be both yes and no in that 'yes' people would still have to rely on some kind of system of beliefs in order to answer the question as to what they 'ought' to do (which in itself wouldn't be completely different from ethic/ religious/ ideological type thinking that we have today but also 'no' in that it isn't a given that such thinking would frame our actions and problems in the same way as today when some people say such and such are 'good' while something else is 'evil'. In other words there would or could be something of a "paradigm shift" where our system of seeing/talking/labeling of the world around us would be differnt than it had been before.

Hopefully I answered enough to move on at least for now...


"Until now i just wanted to show that there seems to be no direct way of answering the correlation between religion and good and bad relation directly. In such cases what i would like to do is go through the current phase, because current phase is the result of what have been in the past, without knowing the real reasons of what created them. This may not bring us to a point of absolute reality, but may bring us to a point where at least satisfies us to live with our questions in our minds."

— Override

In my way of thinking about things religion/ ethics/ morality/ ideology/ labeling things 'good'or 'bad/ and even any kind of system of beliefs you can think of are ALL MERELY LABELS FOR THE SAME THING. When your talking about someone's religion, your talking about how and/or why they choose to look at the world a certain way and how the act based on it. When your talking about someone's ideology, your talking about how and/or why they choose to look at the world a certain way and how the act based on it. When your talking about when someone chooses to label things either 'good'or 'bad, your talking about how and/or why they choose to look at the world a certain way and how the act based on it. When your talking about someone's morality, your talking about how and/or why they choose to look at the world a certain way and how the act based on it. When your talking about even any system of beliefs they may use to get about their day, your talking about how and/or why they choose to look at the world a certain way and how the act based on it. I'm being kind of repetitive and I know each of those terms don't mean EXACTLY the same thing but in my humble opinion more often than not it isn't necessary to split hairs on how they are different when dealing with some of the more complicated stuff.


"I don't want to discuss religions deeply, but according to my perception of the world that we live on today, for majority of people including me, good and bad are related to religion. How i come to this point is the outside world taught me like this because i see on movies and on televisions and on holy religions this way. So looking at the current situation i think good and bad are thought to me and they are related with religion.

We can go to a different point from here, but if we can justify the thesis "good and evil is related with religion" that would be good starting point. Open to suggestions of course on how to continue."

— Override

If you have ever read post modern philosophy you might familiar with the terms 'narrative' and 'context'. In layman terms, a 'narrative' is kind of like a giant story that is told to everyone from the time they are kids to when they become adults and the term 'context' is term use to describe how something relates to narrative but more or less means the same thing as a narrative. As inside larger or main narrative there can be another smaller narratives or sub narratives much like there are sub plots within the main plot of a movie; and possibly smaller/sub narratives within those.The concept of a narrative/context can be both simple and complex because while they are something the same thing as mere religion and morality they are also concern with things like social norms, psychology social conditioning, various kind of subtle and/or benign brainwashing,etc.

To give you an example of how this works a type passage in post modern philosophy using the words narrative to say something might go something like this "the word 'good' and 'evil' only have meaning withing the context of the narrative they are derived from, but outside of that narrative they could be meaningless and/or moot". While someone who believes in 'good' and 'evil' could argue that that is not true and that their concepts of the world around them really has good and evil in it, the problem is left open for debate.

For the post modernist saying this, it is possible or probable that 'good' and 'evil' are merely labels/mental constructs of the world around us but may not actually represent how or what the world actually is. Even if they are wrong and mistaken in some way (and the guy who says such and such are 'good' or 'evil' is ACTUALLY correct in some way) is position is STILL SOUND AND 'Ok' from his point of view and for people that think like him. The reason for this is he is not arguing whether such and such are actually good or evil, but merely the possibly there being issue with how we label things good or evil. He likely also aware that even his own question of labeling of good and evil is in large part due to his own narrative that he is drawing from and since other people's narrative could be biased/flawed it (hopefully) would be as much of a surprise to him to eventually notice a thing or not correct in his own system of beliefs, even if that sometime takes a bit of time.

Ok, I finally got to the part where I need to reference the medieval scientist's data collectors. To quickly recap the data collectors (whether it is being done then or now) are only allowed to collect data and are nether allowed to 'fudge' the information/numbers nor add any kind of opinion into their process of collecting data. If you ever studied statistics and/or how people are able to 'lie' and/or cherry pick with it, you should understand why it needs to be done that way. If there needs to be any lying and or cherry picking actually done, it will be the data collector's superiors who have the authority to draw opinions and conclusions about such things. However the beauty such a system is the raw data can still be referenced by others (if it isn't destroyed, which could create more problems for the people who wish to destroy it than it is worth to do that) if they what to draw their own opinions about it.

In a system where collecting the data and drawing opinions is being done at the same time (which is how human thinking is done most of the time) any kind of data that we can find useful has a better chance to be shewed. The reason I'm bring this up is since you are wondering what it looks like to live in a world not influenced by 'good'/'evil', religions, etc all you got to do is think like one of these data collectors for a little while and you will start having a better grasp on it. While I'm sure you or anyone reading this may realize that writing down numbers appearing on a senor and deciding whether to lie to a killer who asked you to tell him where your friend is hiding are two completely separate things, there is actually a simple work around for that. But I probably should reference Hume in order to do that.

Hume's most famous quote (or at least the quote of his I know best) is "you cannot get an ought from an is". In layman terms this means that the actions one believes they should carry out for their greatest benefit (the 'ought' part of the post) CANNOT be derived by the mere facts and/or data (which is the 'is' he is referencing) that one is able to access at the time of that decision. That could sound really bad, since we but often derive and 'ought' when put in a certain situation and that choice isn't too rarely probably the best course of action at the time; whether we really had enough or not enough information/resource to go by. But the wrinkle is even if we are 'Ok' with getting an ought from an is throughout our lives, we are also aware of how fallible our thinking and actions can be and we also know that such 'judgement calls' can be full of issues and human error. Another way to look at it is every time you DO derive an 'ought' from an is and make one of these judgment calls, YOU HAVE TO RELY ON YOUR OPINION (or your best guess if you prefer to call it that) instead of actually being able to simply use the facts around you to determine what to do. I think Kierkegaard mentioned something about life being open ended because of this,but I can't remember too clearly if this was what he was talking about. Hopefully I'm not getting too long winded by now.

Anyways all this would be merely a kind of awful retentive for ethics except it can be applied to desensitizing ethical questioning and inquiry. While mere data can no longer apply to determine what need to do, the process of how data is used has determined (or at least in the how it works in the model I'm describing). While the paradigm shift isn't completely obvious, it isn't too hard to flesh out for you (or anyone reading this) who isn't already aware of what I'm talking about, of course that is if you don't understand.

For example it is a fact that you have to put gas in your car to go, but it isn't a fact that you ought to put gas in your car to make it go. The reason I used this example is it shouldn't be that hard to realize that for people that drive cars there often isn't a question of whether they should put gas in their car if they need to get somewhere but at the same time it is also obvious that it isn't a given that people should be taking that course of action at certain times.Also it is obviously a fact that cars need gas to go somewhere where needing to go somewhere is obviously not a fact, or at least it is almost is obviously not a fact.

A tougher example would be " is isn't a given a doctor 'ought' to give a patient a life saving vaccine/medicine/treatment/etc if doing so will save their life". Obviously saying something like this at the wrong time and/or place can get me B-slapped by someone that disagrees (which is part of the reason I use it) but I hope that anyone emotional just reading this can put such this to the side for one moment. In a narrative that relies too much on 'good' and 'evil' there is obviously a dilemma here. I'm sure some people can say saving someone is almost always 'good' and choosing to not help them is almost 'evil' and that there might be some exceptions here or there, but even that kind of open mindedness is incomplete. The thing that is being overlooked even in that context is that whether or not the doctor chooses to try and save someone depends if they believe that a human life is worth saving, which isn't as much of given (in Hume's type analyzing of things) as it is often a given in the 'good'/'evil' framework of things.

If you take that even one step further and start asking the questions such as " 'ought' we do everything to prevent wars and/or mass deaths of human being by other events", "is it a given that human beings/ the human race ought to survive","is a a given that humans 'ought' to pursue knowledge and progress to the best of our ability", "is it a given that my life has value and I ought to do everything in order to live" you might end up in area where John Pride was in his opening post if you are not in the right mindset when pondering such things. Depending on your frame of reference and how one ponders such things such questions can lead to skepticism, fallibilism, nihilsim and such. Anyways hopefully this kind of wraps up things as I started with primitive religions and ended with talking about some aspects of Post modernism and the issues dealt with by nihilsim and similar philosophies.

If there is some confusion it might help by listening to an old Jane's Addiction song called 'Ain't No Right' which is sort of about the issue at hand:

Jane's Addiction - Ain't No Right (Video)


(One of my favorite parts of the video is when he gets hit by a shoe that someone threw at him at the concert)

Also one final note, this whole "can't get an 'ought' from an 'is' ", no good and evil, nihilism, etc isn't about it being a better system of morality/religion or whatever since all my arguments can be construed as one kind of hedonism or another (I like to label myself as a hedonistic nihilist, but I'm obviously trying to be cute when I do that).and anyone that knows something about hedonism could come up with reasons it is not so great. At any rate I hope I sort of got you where you wanted/needed to go.
03-31-2017, 09:38 PM #8
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,022 Threads:1,474 Joined:Feb 2011
Can you distinguish right from wrong without religion? Sure. In this relative universe you can. Would you know you have a headache if you were born with it and don't know of anything else? I doubt it
03-31-2017, 10:41 PM #9
Adde Member
Posts:551 Threads:45 Joined:Apr 2012
I'm going to read all that tomorrow. Work sucks. A little over an hour and it's beer thirty.
04-01-2017, 10:00 PM #10
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-31-2017, 09:38 PM)Octo Wrote:  Can you distinguish right from wrong without religion? Sure. In this relative universe you can. Would you know you have a headache if you were born with it and don't know of anything else? I doubt it
Wow, that is pretty good insight into the problem and is even better than what I usually get from people that supposedly study the subject; probably because it is honest and not meant to impress anyone else. blink.gif

You are right in when we are born into our current situation we slowly (but surely) get acclimated into our environment and our mind is conditioned to tune and block out certain issues. I usually label such issues as "the human condition", but I will admit I partly do it because I'm too lazy to really organize and defined such things; and partly because I fear such a task would be well beyond my capability.

However, even if we are born with a headache it is still possible to realize you have a headache IF (and this is a big if) there are moments of clarity where you can experience moments where you do not suffer from the headache and you can have some idea of what it is to live like without it. The truth be told, the reality is every human being at every waking moment is experiencing something many times far worse than a headache but our minds and bodies are almost conditioned perfectly to block most of it out; but sometimes it isn't which is a large source of all the mental conditions people in the world suffer. In Eastern religion/philosophy the term of such issue goes by the word "Duhkha" which roughly translates to pain and suffering but it also means imperfection in the world.

Dukkha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha


I guess why I'm telling you this is even though we are born into a world with imperfection which can and does cause many times more suffering than a mere headache, there are opportunities in our life where we can see past the veil caused by this ever present headache/duhkha and be aware of it's existence even if we have to hide it from ourselves. What is also interesting in primitive societies where pain ever present, the pain threshold seems to be much much higher than our own such as it is with tribe that practice getting stung by bullet ants (because it feels like get shot by a bullet when stung) where you see kids not cry or flinch but yet full grown man cry like little babies when they get stung by them. Man I hope one day to get the opportunity to see what it is like.

Could You Pass the Bullet Ant Test? | National Geographic


The worst pain known to man
04-02-2017, 12:13 AM #11
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-31-2017, 10:41 PM)Adde Wrote:  I'm going to read all that tomorrow. Work sucks. A little over an hour and it's beer thirty.
I agree, work does suck. It is too bad that they no longer allow drinking while at work like they use to about 30-40 years ago.    What good is it to be giving the man you blood, sweat, and tears for a mere paycheck if you can't be completely hosed while doing so?beercheer.gif
04-02-2017, 06:58 PM #12
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,064 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-28-2017, 09:06 PM)dclements Wrote:  
(03-28-2017, 07:57 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  That's sorta' tough regarding special snowflakes...
On the one hand, war, disease, famine, death, bad things happening to good people would seem to put the kibosh entertaining any such options in a rational sense.
But that is almost exactly my point, what science and the rest of our knowledge doesn't really translate very well into the story we are told as kids and by religion/society. I know as an adult we get too burned out to care that it is all wrong, but shouldn't there be someone at the switch who breaks out the whiteout  and fixes such things as they happen?  

Also thanks for knowing a bit about what I'm talking about. On a 'philosophy forum' where I more or less posted the same thing they are merely splitting hairs about nihilism/existentialism, and using Rick and Morty as an example instead of focusing on more important stuff.

Here is the link to the thread:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussio...philosophy

(03-28-2017, 07:57 AM)JayRodney Wrote:  Then there are the well known quantum physics experiments that indicates that we, at least to some degree, control our reality via observation.
It's quite a conundrum.
I remember spending nearly a day trying to wrap my head around that problem, and to the best of my knowledge it doesn't really work the way they claim.

As a slot machine and computer technician, the idea of a device that gives two different answers depending on whether you look at the results sounds implausible. I mean we use the term 'PFM' (pure f*(k1ng magic) whenever we can get a device to work for some reason it wouldn't work a moment ago and I can't count the number of times would fix a machine by giving it a good kicking, but this is different.

I'm no quantum physicist but I'm sure you can jury rig one of the machine they where using for testing to operate in a way contrary to the theory that our 'mind' is affecting the readings. Since the readings are always behaving like a wave when we are looking at it or a particle when we are not looking at it (or vice versa I can't remember which it is), all you got to do is get a machine to do is both observe the behave AND collect statistical data on it's behavior. If the statistical readings tells us it is behaving as if it does when we are looking at it (if we tell the device to "forgot" individual readings), then it is an issue with the device measuring/collecting the information as it passes through; which is almost 100% likely the case. If we get statistical readings telling us we are NOT looking at it, we can tell the machine to dump the individual readings so that we can actually what is going on; which could get weird depending on how it happens.

At either rate you either get a machine to collect individual readings and dumping them if they act like we are reading them or saving them if they don't. Since the system SUPPOSEDLY is behaving depending on whether we observe a state of particle wave before or after a certain phase of the system (and not just on whether we are measuring the state), we can force the system to tell us whether it is the actual measuring of the state that is causing the issue (which I'm sure is 99.99% likely), or if something really weird is going on. Either way we got our answer.

I too get burned out very quickly in philosophy forums because there seems to be not a great deal of imagination which I think is a key ingredient in exploring quantum physics. The one thing I notice in all these discussions is we seem to be ignoring the fact that we are/may be energy/spiritual beings and perhaps our auras/spirit energies may be producing waves that ripple through other waves/particles thus causing altered/new realities. Ergo life would not be meaningless. As for horror philosophy, I don't entertain thoughts on that - actually I get enough of that just watching the news on TV - is it a philosophy? or our chosen way to live on this Earth?
04-02-2017, 07:14 PM #13
Cynicalabsurdance Member
Posts:8,773 Threads:206 Joined:Feb 2011
Eat ,,, shït ,,, Procreate ,,,, Watch T.V. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

is all you need to do ,,,,

attempts at anything beyond that ,,,,

and you cause a Clusterfuck .

so ,,,

stay where you belong ,,,,

the lower shelf of the ,,,, universe

believe it ,,, ya ain't equipped for the REAL Truth .
04-02-2017, 07:22 PM #14
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:15,064 Threads:428 Joined:Jun 2012
(04-02-2017, 07:14 PM)Cynicalabsurdance Wrote:  Eat ,,, shït ,,, Procreate ,,,, Watch T.V. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,

is all you need to do ,,,,

attempts at anything beyond that ,,,,

and you cause a Clusterfuck .

so ,,,

stay where you belong ,,,,

the lower shelf of the ,,,, universe

believe it ,,, ya ain't equipped for the REAL Truth .

Nobody knows where anyone belongs and real truth is subjective.
04-03-2017, 08:53 PM #15
dclements Member
Posts:243 Threads:24 Joined:Jan 2017
(04-02-2017, 06:58 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  I too get burned out very quickly in philosophy forums because there seems to be not a great deal of imagination which I think is a key ingredient in exploring quantum physics. The one thing I notice in all these discussions is we seem to be ignoring the fact that we are/may be energy/spiritual beings and perhaps our auras/spirit energies may be producing waves that ripple through other waves/particles thus causing altered/new realities. Ergo life would not be meaningless. As for horror philosophy, I don't entertain thoughts on that - actually I get enough of that just watching the news on TV - is it a philosophy? or our chosen way to live on this Earth?
Hey, If it bothers you don't sweat it too much; nihilism and horror philosophy (along with fallibilism) merely is part of the antithesis against Western ideology/thesis. It is kind of a 'macho' thing to talk about when you want to try and undermine the man a little bit and piss off 'the man' those that want to continue to subscribe to Abrahmic religions or some kind of belief that all of this 'reality we live in makes sense. It is in NO WAY meant to be unsettling for those who already have enough live hand to mouth and/or too many issues to deal with it. In other words it is philosophical tool to mind ğck those who want to play goody two shoes to life being grand the way we are or whatever. I probably shouldn't admit that but anyone that understands philosophy knows it is merely a tool (and not a means to 'do what is right') so it should be kind of obvious from the get go.

In the end if you lived enough life you should already know how it sucks and you don't need philosophy or to do critical thinking for that. All philosophy and critical thinking does is express it in pretty words for those that live in ivory towers to have notice it if they are too far away from the problem to really notice it.

In my late teens/early twenties, I use to like to read about the occult and mysticism and sometimes wish I had more time for that kind of thing now even if for some it is kind of childish. As far as I can tell there exist some PLAUSIBILITY of something like a human soul and/or collective conscience that exists in a manner not yet understood by science. I mean I have seen ghost, used Ouija boards, been able to get PK wheels to move, etc. unfortunately none of it seems reliable enough to prove anything useful or meaningful that I know of, although it would have been cool if someone who could move a PK wheel use it to win the million dollar challenge when it still existed. I would LOVE to talk about the possibility of such things and perhaps even try to research some of it again, but it is a topic that nobody seems interested in (or at least not enough to admit it), so I more or less just leave it alone.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com