Remove this ad
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
Post Reply Why do some adults act in unempathetic ways?
15107 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/13

lordseth23 wrote:

How is this cultural paradigm not better than the one we have currently?

The point of dismissing Nation-states as fiction is to reinforce the idea that they are not needed. We need to break boundaries between ourselves, not create and enforce them. There should only be one social contract that includes every single person.

It is not promoting different cultural practices, it is saying we should live under one culture, one that accepts each and every one of us as a valuable member.

Why wouldn't you want to change yourself and be empathetic towards others? You should read the book for more information and sources that validate this grand idea. If you are still unconvinced, then I feel sorry for you and your pointless desire to isolate others and make them feel inhuman.


You misunderstand many things.

1. If nation-states are fiction then so is the idea of a social contract. You cannot separate the two concepts.

2. living as one culture is different from what we do now right? That's a different cultural practice.
I'll express the Idea using a mathematical expression.
Current world is A.
Your goal is B.
A=/=B ,therefore A and B are not the same, they are different.

3. There is no such thing as a better culture. You may feel more comfortable or happier in one versus the other, but it is impossible to say one is better because that requires objectivity. No one can be 100% objective about culture because you are influence by your own cultural views and morals. .

4. I am very empathetic towards others. Keep in mind we are only having an internet discussion and you don't actually know me.

5. When you make a claim it is up to you to back it up if challenged. Its bad form in a discussion to tell someone to go read a book to prove your point.

6. I have no desire to make others feel inhuman. I can't control the feelings of others, so I do not concern myself with them (unless failing to do so would inconvenience me somehow).

I feel our disagreement may lie in the fact that I approach this issue from a detached anthropological point of view. I believe you are approaching the issue from a more humanistic point of view. If that is the case I don't think you will understand my stance on the issue.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/17/13

lordseth23 wrote:


That is impossible, he can't limit what he knows. He is either omniscient or he isn't, there is no middle ground.


I see you are as ignorant of Theology, Philosophy, as you are of everything else in the world. God can limit himself in such a way that would not violate his creation's exercise of Freewill, so he can know what he chooses to know, rather than totally know everything.
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


That is impossible, he can't limit what he knows. He is either omniscient or he isn't, there is no middle ground.


I see you are as ignorant of Theology, Philosophy, as you are of everything else in the world. God can limit himself in such a way that would not violate his creation's exercise of Freewill, so he can know what he chooses to know, rather than totally know everything.


Then he wouldn't be omniscient. >_>
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


That is impossible, he can't limit what he knows. He is either omniscient or he isn't, there is no middle ground.


I see you are as ignorant of Theology, Philosophy, as you are of everything else in the world. God can limit himself in such a way that would not violate his creation's exercise of Freewill, so he can know what he chooses to know, rather than totally know everything.
Fancy wordplay, except when you wilfully ignored how there's only conscious "free won't", wherein freewill is really but a distorted rationalization of our subconscious.

"Free won't"
In this case, Libet had participants in the same basic paradigm, but he instructed the participants that once you become aware of your urge to flex, then stop it. Don't flex your fingers or wrist. Libet believed that there was a window of about 150 ms in which the participant could do this (note that the whole 200 ms between conscious awareness and muscle movement is not available, because once the spinal nerves are activated, somewhere around 50 ms before the muscle movement, this can not be stopped). The results indicated that the cortical readiness potential did develop (even earlier than in the past experiments), but this brain activity flattened out just before the muscle action, which indicated the vetoing effects of conscious choice. Libet concluded that participants were using conscious choice to veto the muscle flex at the last moment.

We have free will to abort an action. So, we may better think of volitional action in this case not as free will, but as "free won't." We can stop an action initiated by our brain nonconsciously.
So tell me, are you pretending to be the biblical monotheistic God? Is that why you're just so full of yourself?


Everything is interconnected, isn't it, to this idea that your opponent somehow has a 'God-complex', and so forth. You first accuse me of 'fancy word-play', whereas you yourself engage in it- you use this thing called 'Free Won't', imprecisely defined, which seems, only, to be Free Will exercised in the negative sense, and therefore, have nothing to do with your entire complaint.

First, you have a misunderstanding of what 'Free Will' actually means. The Libet experiment shows us nothing but that the exercise of Free Will is not conscious, but it does not make it any less Free Will, for Free Will is merely defined by the philosophers, from Aristotle upwards, as 'up-to-us', and to say that it originates from our unconscious (subconscious is only a popular term deplored by actual psychologists) does not make an action any less originating within us, or any less willed by us.

That we can consciously 'veto' it, that is, we can consciously exercise our power of Free Will in the negative sense, seems all the better, we still originate this action still, so, we are still Free Agents.

But, not, I do not pretend, my dear DomFortress, to be the biblical monotheistic God- I am the Lord God, made into Flesh, hence my abundant and abounding wisdom, which bring light to the world darkened by the veil of ignorance!
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:

There are many ways of interpreting what it means to be Omniscient. To take one example, the Molinist conception of Omniscient involves that God knows everything, including knowledge of counterfactuals- that is, God knows what I will do given any circumstances.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.



The more Augustinian approach is to say that God knows all that there is, and since counterfactuals do not exist, it isn't.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.



Another line of argument is that God doesn't know what is to be, because what is to be is not existent, and so, cannot be known.


No, he would not be considered omniscient in this case.



Finally, as I have said, God can limit his own knowledge by choosing to know and not know what he chooses, since he is, also, Omnipotent, he has the power to do so.


He has to have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know, so your logic fails here.



This does not make him any less all knowing,


Yeah it does.



in that he can access the information any time he chooses,


He has to know about the information he could possibly access if he ever chooses to access it, therefore he can't forget about it.



but it is that he chooses not to know to preserve the dignity of his creation.


He can't choose not to know what he already knows, because that would require not having knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know. He cannot not have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, or else he would be omniscient. He doesn't live in the continuum of time, so he will always have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, because he is always in the present, past, and future, therefore making the act of forgetting impossible.


Why can't you understand the definition of omniscience?


2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

lordseth23 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

There are many ways of interpreting what it means to be Omniscient. To take one example, the Molinist conception of Omniscient involves that God knows everything, including knowledge of counterfactuals- that is, God knows what I will do given any circumstances.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.



The more Augustinian approach is to say that God knows all that there is, and since counterfactuals do not exist, it isn't.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.


You do realise that those two definition contradict each other right? Therefore your claim to the singularity of the word 'Omniscience' is patently false by your own admission.




Another line of argument is that God doesn't know what is to be, because what is to be is not existent, and so, cannot be known.


No, he would not be considered omniscient in this case.


No, he is still omniscient because to be omniscient is to know everything that is, so, since there is no future yet, it is not existent, and isn't.




Finally, as I have said, God can limit his own knowledge by choosing to know and not know what he chooses, since he is, also, Omnipotent, he has the power to do so.


He has to have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know, so your logic fails here.


No, there is no logically failing on my part, but the weakness of intelligence on yours. To be able to know something, and to not know it is not a contradiction. God has access too that information any time, hence ability, he chooses not to know it, which is not, as you make it out to be, inability, but rather, not having.




This does not make him any less all knowing,


Yeah it does.


No, it doesn't. He knows everything he chooses to know, and he chooses what he does not know- he can well know everything, and be omniscient in the total sense, but he chooses, instead, to limit himself. Thus, we say that he is omniscient, in that he knows everything, and can access it anytime, but we also say that his omniscience is limited, in that he limits himself.




in that he can access the information any time he chooses,


He has to know about the information he could possibly access if he ever chooses to access it, therefore he can't forget about it.


No, he does not 'forget about it', but that he limit himself so that he does not know it, though he can access that information anytime he wants. For example, suppose you are reading a book on political science, and you know how to make cupcakes- whilst reading that book, you do not think about how to make cupcake, but you are able to recall that information any time you wish to make cupcakes. It is clear that you did not forget it, only that it is stored and not used. With God, however, he has the ability to actually block of some forms of knowledge for the dignity of his creation and the exercise of Free Will, but he may still access it any time he wants. Thus, he can choose to know something, and choose not to know something. It is called Omnipotence.




but it is that he chooses not to know to preserve the dignity of his creation.


He can't choose not to know what he already knows, because that would require not having knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know. He cannot not have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, or else he would be omniscient. He doesn't live in the continuum of time, so he will always have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, because he is always in the present, past, and future, therefore making the act of forgetting impossible.


Why can't you understand the definition of omniscience?




Because I actually think. What seems to you a fallacy, is only because you confuse knowledge of wants with wanting of knowledge- simply put, you are too stupid to overcome simple word games. Let say there is a student who is weak in maths, he knows that maths exist, but he knows that he is wanting in knowledge of it. Compared to this, there is a student who has no knowledge whatsoever of- say- Differential Equations, not even knowing that it exist. It is manifest that these are two different types of ignorance- one has knowledge of its existence, and his own deficiencies in it, the other not knowing anything about it at all. You presume that God would fall into the latter if he were able to block off knowledge, when it would be more to the former, only this want of knowledge would be a conscious choice that he can, so he wills, change if he pleases by 'unblocking' these knowledge.


Therefore, you should endeavour to put more thoughts into your post, or else not speak at all.

Edit:

You make the assumption, with Boethius, that God is outside of Time, hence, that everything appears to God as 'one', whereas it is equally valid, and even more valid, to say that God is temporal, and that he experiences time. This can be shown in the Old Testament where God behaves in such a way as to show that time does exist for him, the expulsion of Adam and Eve, the covenant, etc. Therefore, it is only valid if your a priori assumptions are correct- which they are not.
806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Charleston, SC
Offline
Posted 1/18/13
Omniscient: adjective. 1) having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.

2) possessed of universal, or complete knowledge.

There is no way to "interpret" this any other way than the very definition. Anyone that thinks that "omniscient" means anything else is a fool.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

diodrin wrote:

Omniscient: adjective. 1) having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.

2) possessed of universal, or complete knowledge.

There is no way to "interpret" this any other way than the very definition. Anyone that thinks that "omniscient" means anything else is a fool.


God still has infinite and complete knowledge, but he is also able to choose to know certain things. The confusion here is having knowledge and knowing knowledge.
806 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Charleston, SC
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


diodrin wrote:

Omniscient: adjective. 1) having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.

2) possessed of universal, or complete knowledge.

There is no way to "interpret" this any other way than the very definition. Anyone that thinks that "omniscient" means anything else is a fool.


God still has infinite and complete knowledge, but he is also able to choose to know certain things. The confusion here is having knowledge and knowing knowledge.


Fool. First prove "Gods" existence beyond reasonable doubt. Second look up the definition of "possessed of". (I'm not angry but I love a heated debate, so bring it or go home!)
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

diodrin wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


diodrin wrote:

Omniscient: adjective. 1) having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight.

2) possessed of universal, or complete knowledge.

There is no way to "interpret" this any other way than the very definition. Anyone that thinks that "omniscient" means anything else is a fool.


God still has infinite and complete knowledge, but he is also able to choose to know certain things. The confusion here is having knowledge and knowing knowledge.


Fool. First prove "Gods" existence beyond reasonable doubt. Second look up the definition of "possessed of". (I'm not angry but I love a heated debate, so bring it or go home!)


The question is not about God, but about what Omniscience entails- which is where you are wrong by your own definition. Second, you insist on confusing having knowledge of something with knowing something.


God has knowledge of Everything, he can choose to know certain things amongst them and not know something.

Imagine, for a moment, that I own a library, with all the books in the world- I can choose to read and not read certain books, but I still own all these books.

However, God is only brought up in relation to the OP moralising prattings.
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

There are many ways of interpreting what it means to be Omniscient. To take one example, the Molinist conception of Omniscient involves that God knows everything, including knowledge of counterfactuals- that is, God knows what I will do given any circumstances.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.



The more Augustinian approach is to say that God knows all that there is, and since counterfactuals do not exist, it isn't.


Yes, he would be considered omniscient in this case.


You do realise that those two definition contradict each other right? Therefore your claim to the singularity of the word 'Omniscience' is patently false by your own admission.




Another line of argument is that God doesn't know what is to be, because what is to be is not existent, and so, cannot be known.


No, he would not be considered omniscient in this case.


No, he is still omniscient because to be omniscient is to know everything that is, so, since there is no future yet, it is not existent, and isn't.




Finally, as I have said, God can limit his own knowledge by choosing to know and not know what he chooses, since he is, also, Omnipotent, he has the power to do so.


He has to have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know, so your logic fails here.


No, there is no logically failing on my part, but the weakness of intelligence on yours. To be able to know something, and to not know it is not a contradiction. God has access too that information any time, hence ability, he chooses not to know it, which is not, as you make it out to be, inability, but rather, not having.




This does not make him any less all knowing,


Yeah it does.


No, it doesn't. He knows everything he chooses to know, and he chooses what he does not know- he can well know everything, and be omniscient in the total sense, but he chooses, instead, to limit himself. Thus, we say that he is omniscient, in that he knows everything, and can access it anytime, but we also say that his omniscience is limited, in that he limits himself.




in that he can access the information any time he chooses,


He has to know about the information he could possibly access if he ever chooses to access it, therefore he can't forget about it.


No, he does not 'forget about it', but that he limit himself so that he does not know it, though he can access that information anytime he wants. For example, suppose you are reading a book on political science, and you know how to make cupcakes- whilst reading that book, you do not think about how to make cupcake, but you are able to recall that information any time you wish to make cupcakes. It is clear that you did not forget it, only that it is stored and not used. With God, however, he has the ability to actually block of some forms of knowledge for the dignity of his creation and the exercise of Free Will, but he may still access it any time he wants. Thus, he can choose to know something, and choose not to know something. It is called Omnipotence.




but it is that he chooses not to know to preserve the dignity of his creation.


He can't choose not to know what he already knows, because that would require not having knowledge of the knowledge he is trying not to know. He cannot not have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, or else he would be omniscient. He doesn't live in the continuum of time, so he will always have knowledge of the knowledge he is trying to forget, because he is always in the present, past, and future, therefore making the act of forgetting impossible.


Why can't you understand the definition of omniscience?




Because I actually think. What seems to you a fallacy, is only because you confuse knowledge of wants with wanting of knowledge- simply put, you are too stupid to overcome simple word games. Let say there is a student who is weak in maths, he knows that maths exist, but he knows that he is wanting in knowledge of it. Compared to this, there is a student who has no knowledge whatsoever of- say- Differential Equations, not even knowing that it exist. It is manifest that these are two different types of ignorance- one has knowledge of its existence, and his own deficiencies in it, the other not knowing anything about it at all. You presume that God would fall into the latter if he were able to block off knowledge, when it would be more to the former, only this want of knowledge would be a conscious choice that he can, so he wills, change if he pleases by 'unblocking' these knowledge.


Therefore, you should endeavour to put more thoughts into your post, or else not speak at all.

Edit:

You make the assumption, with Boethius, that God is outside of Time, hence, that everything appears to God as 'one', whereas it is equally valid, and even more valid, to say that God is temporal, and that he experiences time. This can be shown in the Old Testament where God behaves in such a way as to show that time does exist for him, the expulsion of Adam and Eve, the covenant, etc. Therefore, it is only valid if your a priori assumptions are correct- which they are not.


Okay then, you claim that God is omnipotent. I acknowledge that I will never be omnipotent, so you cannot claim that I am aspiring to Godhood.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

lordseth23 wrote:



Okay then, you claim that God is omnipotent. I acknowledge that I will never be omnipotent, so you cannot claim that I am aspiring to Godhood.



You are still aspiring to Godhood, given that your moral pratting against the Others seems nothing less then an attempt to exercise power, whether physical or moral, over them.
27425 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / Hughesville, Penn...
Offline
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


lordseth23 wrote:



Okay then, you claim that God is omnipotent. I acknowledge that I will never be omnipotent, so you cannot claim that I am aspiring to Godhood.



You are still aspiring to Godhood, given that your moral pratting against the Others seems nothing less then an attempt to exercise power, whether physical or moral, over them.


It is not, that is just what you want to think it is in order to justify your troll attempts.
Posted 1/18/13

longfenglim wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


longfenglim wrote:

Fancy wordplay, except when you wilfully ignored how there's only conscious "free won't", wherein freewill is really but a distorted rationalization of our subconscious.

"Free won't"
In this case, Libet had participants in the same basic paradigm, but he instructed the participants that once you become aware of your urge to flex, then stop it. Don't flex your fingers or wrist. Libet believed that there was a window of about 150 ms in which the participant could do this (note that the whole 200 ms between conscious awareness and muscle movement is not available, because once the spinal nerves are activated, somewhere around 50 ms before the muscle movement, this can not be stopped). The results indicated that the cortical readiness potential did develop (even earlier than in the past experiments), but this brain activity flattened out just before the muscle action, which indicated the vetoing effects of conscious choice. Libet concluded that participants were using conscious choice to veto the muscle flex at the last moment.

We have free will to abort an action. So, we may better think of volitional action in this case not as free will, but as "free won't." We can stop an action initiated by our brain nonconsciously.
So tell me, are you pretending to be the biblical monotheistic God? Is that why you're just so full of yourself?


Everything is interconnected, isn't it, to this idea that your opponent somehow has a 'God-complex', and so forth. You first accuse me of 'fancy word-play', whereas you yourself engage in it- you use this thing called 'Free Won't', imprecisely defined, which seems, only, to be Free Will exercised in the negative sense, and therefore, have nothing to do with your entire complaint.

First, you have a misunderstanding of what 'Free Will' actually means. The Libet experiment shows us nothing but that the exercise of Free Will is not conscious, but it does not make it any less Free Will, for Free Will is merely defined by the philosophers, from Aristotle upwards, as 'up-to-us', and to say that it originates from our unconscious (subconscious is only a popular term deplored by actual psychologists) does not make an action any less originating within us, or any less willed by us.

That we can consciously 'veto' it, that is, we can consciously exercise our power of Free Will in the negative sense, seems all the better, we still originate this action still, so, we are still Free Agents.

But, not, I do not pretend, my dear DomFortress, to be the biblical monotheistic God- I am the Lord God, made into Flesh, hence my abundant and abounding wisdom, which bring light to the world darkened by the veil of ignorance!
You're an arrogant and self-righteous man-child, who's own brain in part can't differentiate its own self-soothing pleasure generated by your own fantasy.

In an important pair of papers, Gendler introduces a novel term to describe the mental state that underlies these reactions: She calls it "alief." Beliefs are attitudes that we hold in response to how things are. Aliefs are more primitive. They are responses to how things seem. In the above example, people have beliefs that tell them they are safe, but they have aliefs that tell them they are in danger. Or consider the findings of Paul Rozin, a professor of psychology at the University of Pennsylvania, that people often refuse to drink soup from a brand-new bedpan, eat fudge shaped like feces, or put an empty gun to their head and pull the trigger. Gendler notes that the belief here is: The bedpan is clean, the fudge is fudge, the gun is empty. But the alief is stupid, screaming, "Filthy object! Dangerous object! Stay away!"

The point of alief is to capture the fact that our minds are partially indifferent to the contrast between events that we believe to be real versus those that seem to be real, or that are imagined to be real. This extends naturally to the pleasures of the imagination. Those who get pleasure voyeuristically watching real people have sex will enjoy watching actors having sex in a movie. Those who like observing clever people interact in the real world will get the same pleasure observing actors pretend to be such people on television. Imagination is Reality Lite—a useful substitute when the real pleasure is inaccessible, too risky, or too much work.

Often we experience ourselves as the agent, the main character, of an imaginary event. To use a term favored by psychologists who work in this area, we get transported. This is how daydreams and fantasies typically work; you imagine winning the prize, not watching yourself winning the prize. Certain video games work this way as well: They establish the illusion of running around shooting aliens, or doing tricks on a skateboard, through visual stimulation that fools a part of you into thinking—or alieving—that you, yourself, are moving through space.
-from "The Pleasures of Imagination" by Paul Bloom
Sorry, you're still very much a human with your essentialist mindset gone out of control. And that part of you was programmed into your subconscious through the process of social epigenetics, where it starts even before you were born, as a feature of your still developing social brain. It's also how your own fantasy, your own alief, can take on a life of its own. Simply by your social brain following its own socially constructed implicit memory. And since you couldn't even veto your own imagination, your "freewill" rhetoric is but a culturally constructed illusion. Just as how you couldn't veto your social brain's process of assimilation, when you ended up misrepresenting the origin of human subconscious.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 1/18/13 , edited 1/18/13

DomFortress wrote:



You're an arrogant and self-righteous man-child, who's own brain in part can't differentiate its own self-soothing pleasure generated by your own fantasy.


There is not much in your post, but vituperation and ad hominem attacks, without a single semblance of argument or intellect mixed in't. This first sentence, indeed, excellently exemplify your usual mode of discourse- insult, prolixity, and obscurity. But, stylistical critique aside, I find myself agreeing with you in the first part of the sentence, that I am 'man-child', but only in this sense: I embody the virtues of both man and child, where the wisdom and prudence of adult man, is felicitously joined with curiosity, freshness, and vigour of intellect of a child. From this most happy of combination springs, as you yourself said, a 'man-child', a being embodying the excellencies of both with the defects of neither. I therefore posses what the Greeks called ἀρετή, the Latins Virtus, and am more fully deserving than that ancient philosopher, Hermes, of the title Τρισμέγιστος! If I seem arrogant, or 'self-righteous', it is only because I am right and you are wrong, and what appears to be arrogance and self-righteousness in me is only envy on your part.

But, you are wrong to say that my own brain cannot 'differentiate its own self-soothing pleasure generated by your own fantasy', or, to put it more economically, 'comforting self-delusions', for delusion is for the lower order of men, like yourself, and is totally absent in those who have transcend Man.




Sorry, you're still very much a human with your essentialist mindset gone out of control.



Quite the contrary, I am Super-human, approaching, if not already in, the level of deity. I am not simply a great man, as Divus Julius, Bonaparte, Jeanne D'Arc, etc. were, rather I am the prophecised Super-human of the Persian Prophet Zoroaster! I point the way to a new man, a more perfect man, thus, I use the metaphor of the God of Israel because that is where I stand in relation to the rest of current mankind.


And that part of you was programmed into your subconscious through the process of social epigenetics, where it starts even before you were born, as a feature of your still developing social brain. It's also how your own fantasy, your own alief, can take on a life of its own. Simply by your social brain following its own socially constructed implicit memory. And since you couldn't even veto your own imagination, your "freewill" rhetoric is but a culturally constructed illusion. Just as how you couldn't veto your social brain's process of assimilation, when you ended up misrepresenting the origin of human subconscious.


My Alief, contrary to your claim, does not take a life on its own because, if we may compare our mind to Plato's tripartiate soul, we would find that I can completely subdued my appetitive and my spirited-- that is, your alief and all the baser things of man, are completely subdued to the rational. Thus, having curbed my passions and other irrationalities, including my alief, and being a creature of reason, your attempt at psychoanalysis fails upon me. You try to say that there is some form of social determinism which acts upon me either consciously or unconsciously, and that my imagination has full reign over me. The two are patently false, in that, as with most other greater men, I pride myself in my break from society and societal prejudice, what the Greeks called δόξα, and what Socrates devoted his career against, in search of wisdom and truth.

Thus, there is no need to veto my own imagination, as it holds no sway over me, whereas you, on the other hand, are sadly delusional, thinking yourself wise for saying nothing so lengthily, and thus, it should do well that you hold a mirror to yourself, and apply your own feeble attempts as psychoanalysis to yourself, before trying to speak to such a fully realised being, a being of almost complete perfection as myself.

If I have devoted far too much time defending my most excellent character, it is only because you do not provide any argument against anything I have said, and only posted a single, insipid raillery against me personally, with a feeble attempt try to provide a psychological basis to your irrationality, addressing almost nothing of what I posted.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.