Discussion in 'Random Chat' started by Mad hatter, Aug 12, 2014.
"Dont be so bitter" is a bit of advice that can benefit everyone
If I could, I would. It's all a matter of choosing to put my head in the sand and pretend reality isn't what it is or I can face it and know the truth. Nobody wants reality to be different more than I do, but it is what it is whether I delude myself or not.
All of which comes back to the self. Charity makes one feel good about themself, its never about the other person. Even at times it doesn't seem like it is, every action is to benefit the self be it through the happy feelings of thinking one is a 'good person' or one a subconscious level, to satisfy a need to be relevant, or to feel like one has a place in the universe. It all comes down to that. Disagree with me, you'll be happier that way.
I was out all day running errands, buying groceries for next week and doing weekend stuff... and upon returning home I notice a package at my front door, from the florist? I'm thinking who in the hell would be sending me flowers!? I open it up and it wasn't flowers at all, it was a bush, a miniature christmas tree complete with a box of tiny ornaments and a string of lights.
My ex-girlfriend's daughter sent it to me.
While her mother and I were together I tried to raise her as if she was blood, but when the relationship with her mom ended, well, that ended too. Though I've wanted to pick up the phone for these last two years and call her, just to see how she's getting along at school and if she's doing alright, I never found the courage. Suppose it was because I'm not her biological dad and felt it's not my place. I called her this evening to thank her for the 'Charlie Brown Christmas Tree', and we talked for two hours about all kinds of things, just life and all the ups and downs, she got quiet, said she thinks of me as her dad and that she was very hurt that I had never tried to contact her.
So that's what love means to me... it's when a child breaks your heart.
Aw, that was incredibly sweet of her to send that little tree and open back up the lines of communication between you two. It sounds like you're very important to her (and her to you). I hope you guys can stay in touch and be there for one another.
I hope so too.
Statement is overly dependent on personal perception and mostly lacking in objectivity. Its not that the universe is so vile and dark and superemo, it is merely that you percieve it so. Making it out a twisted abomination is just as stupid as turning everything into fluffy bunnies and patheticaly naive love. In reality the only objective truth lies in logic and knowledge, something unrelated to illogical emotion and perception. Wisdom is found not at any one side of an argument, but in the middle
There is no such thing as objective reality, merely an individuals relative reality believed to apply to the absolute. Your argument is identical to mine in that regard.
With your last statement you yourself conclude that everything you said so far is in essence your own perception and it does not apply to anyone else but yourself, thereafter making all your previous posts irrelevant to the absolute truth which you kept holding them up as. And all of this by your own accord
Would you care for a dance to my tunes a while longer? It is quite amusing(well for me at least) to observe and manipulate thought processing in arguments
Yes and no. The absolute truth is unknowable, all relative truths are attempts to discover the absolute (except those that are willingly ignorant or psychotic) Given that, arguments for the absolute on either side are impossible to verify or truly attest to. Even the most 'fundamental truths' are not more than collections of relative truths stuck together. That doesn't mean a relative truth cannot be accurate absolutely, but it is unknowable as to whether it is or not without absorbing the relative truths of others. My perception comes from my experience. Why would I discard a truth found through experience for one that is nonsense given the context of my life?
I find these statements to be true and hold them as my view on the absolute until proven, through my own experience, otherwise.
Love means I get to play Ocarina of Time for the umpteenth time because my wife bought me a copy of it umpteen years ago, thus kicking off my love affair with The Legend of Zelda series. Those life containers in the top left hand corner of the game screen are love hearts to her. She knows me well.
Yes and no? A nice getaway this little phrase is, no? If there is a point in you saying all this, I hope you'll know what it is soon enough.
Your inability to put it in context is not my problem.
Quite the contrary - You concluded a universe based on your perception and understanding, as you yourself admit. Thereafter the question is left hanging in the air - why exactly does your version of reality in particular should apply to everyone else. Now ofcourse you would instantly point out how this is not true and retreat back a few posts where your counterattack is prepared:
So now I would point out that you previously said "There is no such thing as objective reality, merely an individuals relative reality believed to apply to the absolute" making your current argument that such an absolute truth does exist and is in fact perceivable mean either exactly null and void, or in the case the previous statement is false - making the original true accepting the other is false(which by the way contradicts itself on top of all)and therafter making the current argument complete bullcrap. I don't have any context when you can't form a consensus with yourself. Yes and no indeed!
The absolute truth is unknowable but we can know it even though we can't. We can perceive it even though our perception is wrong, my experience shows that objective reality works like that, even though objective reality doesn't work that way because I perceived it doesn't, but then again since my perception is wrong, I can conclude its observation untrue due to.... Say hello to Mr. Paradox, a dear friend of mine
That is the simplest manner of shoving an unwanted question away - say yes and no! The I wanna have it both ways - "If you are to grant reward I am your man, if it is to reap one, I am not him!"
Yes and no meant I felt one of your points had merit, but not on another. Not exactly graceful while taking concessions eh?
To put it simply: it does because that's how it works in my experience. Why would you accept a reality when you have experienced the opposite as being true? None willingly accept a lie as truth. I ask you the same question: why should yours apply to everyone else?
The absolute is impossible to know, but that doesn't stop relative perceptions from being correct. Partially, this might be because its impossible to know when the relative and the absolute coincide. You can only have a stiff faith in your relative belief, but it matters not to whether this is an absolute or not. I never said that the absolute is perceivable, only that the relative may coincide with it. We are too limited to know when something is absolute, only when the evidence points to the relative coinciding with such, but even then it is impossible to know. This is why we work with an idea until something that seems to be more accurate comes along, its why evidence is so important in constructing reality. We aim to know the absolute, even if it is impossible, by building structures out of evidence to support a relative in the hopes that the relative coincides with what is absolute.
The paradox you suggest falls apart when you take out the dichotomy.
To put it another way: It is not impossible to know the truth, but its impossible to know the truth is the truth.
^ Simple - because mine never stated any specific such side is absolutely correct. For which if you think about it - we just ran the argument full circle and nulled everything to this point. I do love reaching this point in an argument though.
Wasn't really an argument, just a philosophical conversation. My original view hasn't changed.
Well that is agreeable, looking forward to more ridicilous conversations with you folks
Ugh, someone's done his homework on Greek Philosophy. I enjoy over-analysing matters as well, though I don't like to think myself better than others (it inevitably turns out that way, an involuntary constant pain of trying to convince others that my arrogance is only a shade of skepticism and negativism of which I cannot get rid of)...
However, there is something I always remember when love comes into discussion. Last year, at my Modern Philosophy course, my professor told (and taught) us something about love. He said, in a context or another, that we can say all sorts of things about love and over analyse our situation (wondering what is going on and trying to find reasons and motives for our being in a certain stage of love or affection), however, when we do this, we inevitably lose something. According to him, love is something one feels and is aware of feeling it, the discussions (mostly going round the subject indefinitely trying to figure out what and why) only make us lose sight of the feeling. A feeling, in this sense, is only a feeling (or especially because it's a feeling), and one can merely explain it as best as one can in a conversation, but can never get to the roots of it. That is, when we try to over analyse our situation (e.g. wonder about whether our love is love, about whether one should be together with another, what type of love one is feeling, etc), we inevitably fail at loving.
Well, I never thought my professor to be so romantic, but I do see his point and agree with him on a level.
My conception of love is something similar with what Mad Hatter had said, that is a feeling of utmost comfortableness around my loved one, feeling secure and cared for, wanting to just spend my days lazily and happily with the other. I do not think this is the only type of love, and I don't believe in soul mates and finding your true one, either, but I also believe that human beings, be them so social and love-seeking, are bound to find love around many corners, and that the best type of love is probably the one that does not make you wonder all the time.
It seems so bizarre to talk about love as having a system... I would agree to the point that there are types of love in this world, and perhaps these 4 categories aren't the only ones (by the way, agape is probably the love of God/divinity as well, though that might be easily understood by the description you gave it). People usually experience love of family, love for friends, passion, and love of divinity/something grander, etc, that's only natural they would, and they probably mix between all the times. Nevertheless, having a cold and systematic discussion about love seems to mitigate its intensity (whose nature seems to be in need of mystery and [un]revealing). I'd say that we can talk about anything, and we might even understand it theoretically, but the true understanding of such sensations/affections is, I believe, by feeling them (experiencing them).
Withdrawal is such a temporary status.
Separate names with a comma.