i be havin some deep ass thoughts bruh

[hellogoodbye]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqZBeDW3rWY

a fellow proponent for the "human being" vs "person" argument

it's fucking stupid. what exactly are these laws of nature? why are man-made laws so absurd?

[haploid]

lol i bet that guy really likes zeitgeist.

anyone who really likes zeitgeist is a fucking crackpot.

[youkinorn2]

true freedom and democracy don't exist in our world as we know it

as long as we will be ''persons'' as opposed to ''human beings'' we won't be free and equal

being a ''person'' makes you subject to often absurd man-made laws

being a ''human being'' makes you subject to the only laws there should be; laws of nature

yo. read some hobbes or something.

[tombrown]

the grammer of the language

[evisu 2000]

http://gallatin.nyu.edu/academics/courses/detail.SP2012.IDSEM-UG1324.001.html

[Dex_star]

whats the most useless college degree ever? [semi-relevant]

[lorem3k]

^women's studies

[sawyer]

true freedom and democracy don't exist in our world as we know it

as long as we will be ''persons'' as opposed to ''human beings'' we won't be free and equal

being a ''person'' makes you subject to often absurd man-made laws

being a ''human being'' makes you subject to the only laws there should be; laws of nature

a fellow proponent for the "human being" vs "person" argument

it's fucking stupid. what exactly are these laws of nature? why are man-made laws so absurd?

i'm sympathetic to your views and in my own time considering them found some problems

1a. how to differentiate between natural laws and man-made laws?

eg: the allusion to hobbes is one way of saying that man-made laws are a natural outcome.

1b. what do we understand as laws of nature?

i'm not asking for a specific answer or to arrive at any conclusion, it's just to show that this idea of only living under natural law is just as problematic as common law. warning: this discussion tends to get sucked into debates that use naturalistic fallacies, or into free will vs determinism arguments, both of which become endless.

to see why this question is important, just look at how dramatically our ideas of what is and isn't natural have changed over time.

2. perceiving people as simply "human beings" is not as innocent as it appears.

it is tempting to take this view, as it seems to have an equalizing effect. but the first issue is that it masks inequalities. that can be inequalities of resources or power. we are all human, but are we all malnourished? don't take my line of reasoning to imply that inequality is a bad thing, or that everyone in the world must be fed. the sheer fact of hunger or starvation is enough to show conceiving of humanity only through a biological lense isn't enough. saying "everyone is human" is a statement about what people are, but cannot account for what they experience

[wood 666]

i finally decided my views on facebook to

Syncretic Neo-Buddhist Orthodoxy

Ultra Socio-Libertarian Radicalism

lol

this is the outcome of a great deal of hermeneutic research and whatnot

Edited December 19, 2012 by felip

[wood 666]

modern man's wish for unimpeded freedom is more often than not a superficial illusion no more valid than the one he runs from in an act of cowardice disguised as existentialism.

so what do you believe? sheer semantics and well-formulated rhetorism?

where did that come from anyways

[haploid]

i believe that civilization is a pretty OK thing and i am glad to be a part of it

[wood 666]

word

[thescott]

i believe that civilization is a pretty OK thing and i am glad to be a part of it

wow....what in the fuck is this shit??

[Nov Spur]

Entropy

[fobsquad]

i finally decided my views on facebook to

Syncretic Neo-Buddhist Orthodoxy

Ultra Socio-Libertarian Radicalism

lol

this is the outcome of a great deal of hermeneutic research and whatnot

i had no idea that whatnot is an actual word in the websters dictionary. wouldve saved me years worth in high school essays.

that said, im convinced that prince weed 69 of denmark understands the english language better than i do. fucking internet

Edited December 24, 2012 by fobsquad

[acerbicb]

Our bodies exist on a plane of infinite time/space-- this makes our general concept of existence a linear process as opposed to a conclusive event. That being said, where does the phenomena of death fall on this infinite plane? Yes, our bodies will continue the process of existence as they transform from flesh and bones into dust, but what of the consciousness? How can it be that something existent in this infinite plane disappears?

Or is it that consciousness is infinite on its own, within its own plane-- that would sure make Jung and other 'collective thought' people happy. Or is it merely that it is imperceptibly floating about as infra-black waves right in front of us?

Here we debate the life and times of the human soul.

Edited December 24, 2012 by acerbicb

[bfan]

Modern physics is basically subsumimg these types of discussions IMO, the influence of a conscious observer in changing probabalistic outcomes seems to be part and parcel of perceived realities, leading to chicken and egg type scenarios. Does the universe exist without consciousness? Or is it that the perceptible universe only exists within/due to consciousness?

[bfan]

Personally I think there's something to the unconscious collective idea, where individual consciousness is a single manifestation of some strange energy/consciousness. Similar to the ideas found in string theory where all particles are one "end" of a string, while the rest in imperceptible but still influencing the string as a whole.

[Magsåvningsreserven]

sometimes i like to not scratch my balls to see how much it can possibly itch

[boy better know]

mankind is individually smart but collectively stupid

[seeldog47]

whats the most useless college degree ever? [semi-relevant]

Business administration, any pre-professional degree.

[seeldog47]

Life is like writing; do everything as simple as possible, then do it simpler.

[boy better know]

Business administration, any pre-professional degree.

so you mean to tell that a degree in medieval studies is more useful than a degree in business administration?

Edited December 25, 2012 by boy better know

[wood 666]

reading materials:

http://www.information.dk/236717

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Dalton-Nietzsche.html

http://www.thelangreport.com/our-founding-fathers/libertarianism-should-not-be-confused-with-liberalism/

http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/ijgls5&div=30&id=&page=

http://www.anus.com/zine/db/friedrich_nietzsche/friedrich_nietzsche-the_antichrist.pdf

[fobsquad]

Business administration, any pre-professional degree.

Life is like writing; do everything as simple as possible, then do it simpler.

occupation: Student

Edited December 27, 2012 by fobsquad

[sawyer]

i have a new meditation chant for 2013:

"come at me, death"

[PRC.]

Business administration, any pre-professional degree.

....the fuck?

[Desaturated]

social media a new outlet for performance art?

[deafmetal]

gf asleep next to me. thinking about which places still deliver pizza right now.

not intending to share.

[acerbicb]

Modern physics is basically subsumimg these types of discussions IMO, the influence of a conscious observer in changing probabalistic outcomes seems to be part and parcel of perceived realities, leading to chicken and egg type scenarios. Does the universe exist without consciousness? Or is it that the perceptible universe only exists within/due to consciousness?

Personally I think there's something to the unconscious collective idea, where individual consciousness is a single manifestation of some strange energy/consciousness. Similar to the ideas found in string theory where all particles are one "end" of a string, while the rest in imperceptible but still influencing the string as a whole.

Well, that's also ancient physics. I'm not necessarily concerned with the ability to perceive the universe, or whether or not things exist if they aren't in our perception. I'm more concerned with the manner which consciousness interacts with its environment, and at what level it does so relative to dimensions of its own, of the universe, or none at all.

Yeah, the collective consciousness used to seem completely ridiculous to me. But the more I think about consciousness, the more it seems logical that it would exist on a plane/frequency of its own. Now there just has to be a way to access it from a third party view-- that would be a nobel idea, yeah?