-  [WT]  [PS]  [Home] [Manage]

[Return]
Posting mode: Reply
  1.   (reply to 12871)
  2. (for post and file deletion)
/phi/ - Philosophy
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG, WEBM
  • Maximum file size allowed is 1000 KB.
  • Images greater than 200x200 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 580 unique user posts. View catalog

  • Blotter updated: 2011-01-12 Show/Hide Show All

There's a new /777/ up, it's /gardening/ Check it out. Suggest new /777/s here.

Movies & TV 24/7 via Channel7: Web Player, .m3u file. Music via Radio7: Web Player, .m3u file.

WebM is now available sitewide! Please check this thread for more info.

Anonymous 17/04/01(Sat)20:24 No. 12871 ID: fe9887
12871

File 149107105282.jpg - (135.60KB , 1920x1080 , IMG_347883.jpg )

General life axioms you've noticed. State the axiom, and then the reason. If no reason is known, write "Reason: N/A". Feel free to argue at will, but only if you think you are 100% certain.

The format should go as follows (Axiom: , Reason: , As a result: ):

Axiom: Two people who have adapted to society's values cannot be equally in love with each other.

Reason: Falling in love renders the person who has fallen in love vulnerable. This vulnerability contradicts the social character/facade they have created for themselves and the very reason the Loved liked the faller in the first place. If both fall in love at the same time, they both notice one another's vulnerability and cancel each other out, rendering the connection emotionless.

As a result: Only one of two possible connections can happen.
1) One of the two socially-based members takes the role of being emotionally stable and stoic, loving the other person or not, and the other takes the role of falling in love. This is what was traditionally intended with man being the former, and woman the latter.
2) Both members have adapted to the non-social life where the true self without a facade blocking it flourishes. The intelligent mind sees and understands that all human beings, including themselves, are vulnerable and endears this thought commonly among others.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:03 No. 12876 ID: 946ad3

There is a phrasing problem with the axiom, that sorta but not really gets dealt with in the reason. Two people who have accepted societies values, and who are not in love with each other at all, will be equally in love with each other under your specified conditions.
It's an interesting pondering, but you should add explicative conditions and restrictions.

Also, supposes absolutism with regards social constructivism. That is, the values of society cannot only be a facade, but cannot not be a facade, that is sincere emergence, or the possibility hereof. This exemplifies peritrope structure. If a relativistic point of view is claimed as absolute it will contain the possibility of its own negation. Working within a bivalent structure at least.

Furthermore, the assumption of absolute constructivism is at contradictory odds with a latent metaphysical realism about love at all. This could also, quite possibly be worked around.

Develop on it, it is actually interesting.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/04(Tue)01:10 No. 12877 ID: 946ad3

For a start just add love > 0, and the phrasing should be fine. However, know that you presume the validity of the possibility of turning the love relation into a quantitative and not just a comparative concept, which is not at all on obviously valid move.


>>
Anonymous 17/04/08(Sat)10:36 No. 12888 ID: fc715f

Axiom: Will as a driving force in life.

Reason: Without it there would be no drive to continue in this confusing world. Being aware of others helps find the fight within. Conditionally of course.

Result: Able.


>>
Anonymous 17/05/27(Sat)20:25 No. 12956 ID: fe9887

Axiom: There can never exist only angels; There can never exist only devils.

Reason: Without angels, devils would have no motivation. --> Without devils, angels would have no motivation. --> Motivation is the driving force for change and for life. --> Given time, a thing will change.

As a result: Utopia is not possible. Angels and devils are viewed as metaphors in this context for differing mindsets, as any mindset that differs from one's own is considered by it to be bad, and any mindset that agrees with it is considered by it to be good.
Even the concepts ideated by the Venus Project are up for question now... until one considers the idea that the entire infrastructure of the Venus Project, if in effect, would be the devil's backbone for sustaining its own life. Would some (my devil, their angel) still leak their virus for destruction on its infrastructure?


[Mind is blown right now. In other good news: I've created a series of axioms; the conclusion from which I am unable to refute. I will be mentally framing this:
Without devils, angels have no motivation.
Without angels, devils have no motivation.
Motivation is the driving force for change and for life.
Given time, a thing will change.
There can never exist only angels.
There can never exist only devils.]


>>
Anonymous 17/06/12(Mon)03:31 No. 12978 ID: 544546

>>12956
This isn't true. Just look at basically any narrative focusing on a "hero". Their job is never to just do whatever they would normally do; it's to "defeat the bad guy". Spiderman and Batman fight crime; the Fellowship beats Sauron; James Bond prevents global catastrophes.

This leads to the only logical conclusion: that the forces of good exist only to oppose the forces of evil. A hero NEEDS THE VILLAIN to exist, in order to exist, themselves. However, what the villain is doing almost never has anything to do with the hero; they want to take over the world, or murder lots of people, or accomplish some evil agenda. They don't oppose the hero except by necessity, and it's NOT their main goal. Far from requiring the hero to exist, they are merely blocked by the hero.

Therefore, good can only exist in the presence of evil, whereas evil can exist even in the absence of good. As a result, it's safe to conclude that all people are naturally evil.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:48 No. 13000 ID: fe9887

>>12978
I'm speaking from a social standpoint. In a society where groups of people are forced to mingle with one another, not all can be (the d)evil. If everyone was evil, there would always be at least but certainly more than one that rises against it. In the wild, of course everyone is evil.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)02:55 No. 13001 ID: fe9887

Axiom: Sexual interest is inversely proportional to emotional interest.

Reason: The more you get to know someone, the more you understand them and therefore lose the superficial interest in them that sex demands. It is irreversible, though. Once you know someone, you can't un-know them.

As a result: You can only pick one of the two. A healthy sex life would be to never know your sex partner. A healthy emotional life would be to give up your sex drive.


>>
Anonymous 17/07/13(Thu)03:00 No. 13002 ID: fe9887

>>13000
In addition, I should have known better than to not include society in my axiom. It's a testament to how mindless I really am.

If everyone was evil in a society, the good terms that bind people together in a social construct would fall apart and sooner than later there would be no such thing as a "society". There will always be someone that rebels against evil and the rules/behaviour established to see the positive side of not being so hasty to put a knife through someone's heart for stealing a loaf of bread.



[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts]


Delete post []
Password  
Report post
Reason