i gewt it but can we just let this thread die now i cant take it any more

Then don't read it

stop replying

Well that's hypocritical.

You can agree with buddhist thoughts even without being buddhist for sure, but unfortunately the final aim of Buddhism is the absence of everything that come from the world (just superficialy speaking of course) and even if you (being a superior creature) are really convinced of not living in the world (since the paradox of nihilism is that it is the most idealistic of all the philosophies), I think that we (common people) are pretty convinced of living in the world and of feeling every kind of emotions; this is the reason why in order to get something out of that fragment (as you assume it should be obvious) you have at least to have a mind predisposed for those kind of concepts.

These are fair points. (Certainly my perspective is radically different that what is common.) They are certainly an improvement on 'these concepts are Buddhists, therefore they are irrelevent to me'. They are also mostly off-topic. Anyway, the 'final aim' of Ecclesiastes is that we should give over our lives to God, that doesn't mean that it is all completely useless to me.

In my opinion his noncurance for this tragedy is more dued to immaturity rather than inhumanity

>noncurance
>nonchalance?

To the Buddha you account his nonchalance to his weltanschauung, but my identical nonchalance is because of immaturity? I smell an argumentum ad hominem.

For every death in this particular incident that I don't care about, there are a billion that you don't care about. Every human dies. If you think that the death of every human is significant then you must have a lot of problems, because billions have died. Have fun spending your short time on this earth worrying about them.

If you think that some human deaths are significant but some aren't, because they didn't live on the same continent as you or during your lifespan, I wonder how you came to that conclusion.

I am human, all too human. I just don't think humans are so special.

---

If you can't take it from me, and you can't take it from the Buddha, how about Orson Welles?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8i47-QBL4Qo

Like all of us, Harry Lime profits from the misery of others. He's just less of a coward and less of a squirming hypocrite.

Victims? Don't be melodramatic. Try to think of them as ... rabbits.

Incidentally, Gui, here's how I (hope I would) face death: with open arms. How do I measure up?

Oh x, a human is bad, but a sociopathic one is worse. I do not care about the deaths of humans, but that is because I am a capybara. Whenever, wherever a capybara dies, I weep profusely. Are you so out of sync with your own species that you cannot identify with them? Do you lack the remotest inkling of empathy?

There are times for sophistry and logic and the aftermath of a tragedy is not one of them. Gui is right to call you a monkey.

For shame.

These are fair points. (Certainly my perspective is radically different that what is common.) They are certainly an improvement on 'these concepts are Buddhists, therefore they are irrelevent to me'. They are also mostly off-topic. Anyway, the 'final aim' of Ecclesiastes is that we should give over our lives to God, that doesn't mean that it is all completely useless to me.

The problem with this argument is that buddhism is influenced by the oriental view upon life, while cattolicism is infulenced by the occidental one, so while I could (but I didn't) assume that a cattolic concept could be properly understood by an occidental guy, the same I couldn't do (and you did) with a buddhist concept (Of course in Orient it would be exactly the opposite, I am not saying that Cattolic Church is better that Buddhism).

---

In my opinion his noncurance for this tragedy is more dued to immaturity rather than inhumanity


>noncurance
>nonchalance?

To the Buddha you account his nonchalance to his weltanschauung, but my identical nonchalance is because of immaturity? I smell an argumentum ad hominem.

To your statement there is already an answer in my last post right after the words you put in italics: immature guys always want to proove everybody how inhuman they are, inhuman people are much more hypocrite.

---

Here it is your logic:

1) No time to mourn for everybody. (wrong)
2) Humans are all equals and making differences between them just because they live in another place is wrong. (wrong)
3) No one is deservable of mourning. (wrong)

No need to say that the fact that this syllogism is wrong is totally confirmed from facts.
Anyway since I always like to have some purely teorical conversation let's examine in a teorical way that syllogism.

1) It is superficial because it has a superficial vision of mourning. Mourning doesn't require to be sad for the whole day or the whole life, as I didn't even when the Connecticut tragedy happened. Mourning is a state of the soul. The soul is a complex thing that cannot be reduced to only black and white. You can mourn also for a second and from that pain you might understand something on yourselves or on what you would like to do in order to solve problems. To mourn doesn't mean just to cry in a corner, but it means to have pain when you think to an event, but when you live you just don't think only to a fixed thing, and even if you do, you can keep on living with a huge pain, but you will still keep on living.
The person that I loved the most was my grandfather who died 8 years ago.
My pain was very intense at the start but now when I live I don't think the whole day to him, but I don't consider myself a superficial person for that; he is still in my heart and for example when I play chess I always think him.
Our lifes are based on simple things, but the fact that these things are simple doesn't mean that they are not important or that they are not sincere.
The same goes for every kind of mourning, mourns has moments of bigger intensity but when the time passes that intensity is not wasted but it is put in our heart / brain and those feeling will come back, prooving that we did care in the end.

2) There is no big need to explain something here.
Objectively humans lifes are all equal, no matters if the person is your mother or a perfect stranger.
Unfortunately our perception upon the world is subjective, and the same it is for people.
To me my mother's life is more important than a perfect stranger one, but if that perfect stranger is a mother of another guy, I can't convince him that mine is more important, because it is not true in general but it is true to me, and since emotions too are subjective, they will be obviously influenced by our subjective priorities.

3) Since both the basis of this last point are wrong, this point is logically wrong.

X, Montagne said A. I said B. It is you who is saying "Happy Buddha thinks A = B." After assuming something I never said you then refute this X-Buddha. I agree. The X-Buddha you created seems a bit stupid.

Fizzer told me "Don't create characters unless it is with your main account." So I created Happy Buddha with my main account. It is a character. You now believe Buddist quotes to be what I really think. So you refute the X-Buddha a second time. Again I agree with you. The X-Buddha's ideas don't make sense.

It was good we could collaborate like this. I made half of a character and you made the other half.

- I disagree that such insight is relative to culture. Catholicism is more alien to me than Buddhism.

- Like I said, there is nothing inhuman about me. I resent that.

I don't disagree with any of this, but we were talking about strangers while you relate something very personal (and if you knew how it made me feel you wouldn't accuse me of inhumanity). But you talk about mourning as if it were weltschmerz, which is no stranger to me.

And you speak of objectivity as if that is worthless in philosophy. If you treated philosophy with the rigour you would a science, you would not make so many faults in logic.

If you want to go around discussing how humans think subjectively then go make a thread about sociology or psychology. If you want to talk about what is objectively true then let's talk philosophy, and you can leave your naturalistic fallacies behind.

If your hand is cold and you put it in warm water, the water will seem hot. If your hand is hot and you put it in warm water it will feel cool. So the water is a different temperature, because that is how we experience it?

Do you think a ruler bends if you put it in water? Or do you see that it is straight before and after you put it in, and deduce refraction?

You now believe Buddist quotes to be what I really think.

Nope, I know the difference between copy/pasting and thinking. You're a little short on the latter. And I know you aren't Buddhist (why must you be to understand that parable?), you can't even spell it.

Montagne said men are in part measured by how they face death. If we measure a man by how he views the deaths of others

Montagne said A. I said B.

If the Montagne line is so completely unrelated to the sentence that follows, why did you bother paraphrasing it? Just namedropping?

Pardon me for assuming that your thoughts follow from one sentence to the next.

It was good we could collaborate like this. I made half of a character and you made the other half.

I much prefer my half.

So give it to is straight you jave two sentences i answer this.

Do you feel bad for the people in that school/town?

Two 8 word sentences

Facing death with open arms is better than with open legs.

Hahaha^

why didnt he kill the meaner gardeners?

i will slay a goat in their honour.

This is not being inhuman, this is flaunting inhumanity, flaunting inhumanity is (as I've already said 2 times) dued to immaturity and not to inhumanity.

---

And you speak of objectivity as if that is worthless in philosophy. If you treated philosophy with the rigour you would a science, you would not make so many faults in logic.

If you want to go around discussing how humans think subjectively then go make a thread about sociology or psychology. If you want to talk about what is objectively true then let's talk philosophy, and you can leave your naturalistic fallacies behind.

Following this kind of conception of philosophy the only thing to do is becoming nihilistic.
Nihilism was overcome not by me, but by Nietzsche for the first time.
You said of knowing Nietzsche, I think that if you would have really studied and understood Nietzsche deeply and not just superficially (as the 90% of people do, and as I did myself when I was 15) you should know how much objectiveness is totally irrilevant.
I won't say any more just because I think that you should understand this fact on your own as I did, and not being teached by someone else, that you won't even hear at.

I name dropped? Before Europe's obsession with Freud, Nietzsche, existentialism, and various post-war philosophies struggling to make sense of a world in which millions could kill millions, weren't Montaigne's ideas common knowledge? So if you, X, are permitted to spew philosophies of post-war negativity, angst, disorientation, and hopelessness, why can't I offer an idea from a simpler, earlier time?

"Human, all too human" is one perspective on "humanity" (ie, the species). When I say you lack "humanity" (ie, higher qualities that tend to separate humans from less developed animals), I am referring to something else.

It's wonderful that a young (you're 19 or so, right?), curious boy wants to read philosophy to better understand the world. But have you ever thought that your penchant for negative social criticism is leading you adrift? Do you read what humanists write? Or are you lost in the 20th century of reactionary doubt, skepticism, and negativity? Existentialism, nihilism, and anti-social tendencies aren't an especially good mix. It's like a boy with psychological imbalances experimenting with heavy drugs -- it isn't the wisest thing to do.

If you truly believe in existentialism and/or nihilism, anti-social jokes on a truly serious matter make you appear more psychology patient than philosopher. If you want to be original and philosophical using your Logic 101 phrasing and argumentative structure, wouldn't it work better if you didn't appear to be a leading character in a Camus novel? You want to be the author, the creator of ideas, right? This situation you're in (protagonist thinks he's the creator but is not) reminds me of Niebla, a Spanish existentialist novel by Unamuno. I'm sure there is an English translation. You might like it if you haven't already read it.

I forgot a thing:

- I disagree that such insight is relative to culture. Catholicism is more alien to me than Buddhism.

You assumed that everybody is more alien to Catholicism (or Cristianity actually) rather than Buddhsism, despite our occidental culture background.
My joke was referred to this very logical error...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3555176

You're 2 hours from the boot in this game, gui.

Do you feel bad for the people in that school/town?

First of all Hell bender, now that we know you are capable of literacy, you have no excuse for your usual standard of posting.

The answer is not in particular. Pick out anyone in the world and there is virtually no chance that they do not have some problem or another, for which I could pity them. When I read about the intimate details of even fictional characters, or Trilussa's grandfather, I am capable of feeling bad for them.

I'm sure I would feel bad for those people if I weren't so averse to the hysteria that surrounds these events.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=andy+warhol+electric+chair&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=andy+warhol+electric+chair&sc=1-26&sp=-1&sk=

http://www.kunstkonsum.de/Media/Shop/09071313.1.jpg

Following this kind of conception of philosophy the only thing to do is becoming nihilistic.

Yep. So your point is, that the only way you could disagree with me is if you weren't looking at the world as it truly is?

you should know how much objectiveness is totally irrilevant.

I do. Everything is meaningless. Objectivity is meaningless. Subjectivity is meaningless. Philosophy is meaningless - observe how Gui and the capybara beg me to throw it out the window when it comes to applying it to real life.

Incidentally, it appears that the abyss has stared back into me.

You assumed that everybody is more alien to Catholicism (or Cristianity actually) rather than Buddhsism, despite our occidental culture background.

It is you who assume. It is obvious to me that nobody here is a Buddhist. I don't see why you are all so scared of a different perspective? As a christian, you don't think any Asian can learn anything from Jesus? So why not we from Buddha? Mr. Trollussa, tear down this wall.

---

So if you, X, are permitted to spew philosophies of post-war negativity, angst, disorientation, and hopelessness

>spew

The Dalai Lama once said that "there is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

Please name me one philosopher who is a true nihilist (I am as much an existentialist as a Mormon). I have looked but can find no-one. So I am spewing nobody's philosophy but my own.

Not that I wasn't influenced by Tolstoy's Confession. But it is a philosophy he rejects. And I disagree with some of his conclusions anyway.

why can't I offer an idea from a simpler, earlier time?

Saint Augustine wrote that "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."

An idea which you imply you do not agree with, and which therefore does not have any bearing on the discussion? Well, if you feel the need to coat your arguments with a thin veneer of borrowed credibility, go ahead.

When I say you lack "humanity" (ie, higher qualities that tend to separate humans from less developed animals), I am referring to something else.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin claimed that "you are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience."

Refer back to my first post. Hell bender invoked prayer, I invoked animal sacrifice. It's a line stolen from Christopher Hitchens, when people said they were praying for his terminal cancer. If being Christopher Hitchens is a less-developed animal than Hell bender, then I would prefer to devolve. Animal sacrifice is human. Female circumcision is human. War is human. Hubris is human. "Gun rights" is human. Living beyond our means is human. The universal neurosis is human. So is the ability to look at the world from a different, more accurate perspective. To create medicines rather than placebos. So don't make a monkey of me just yet.

wouldn't it work better if you didn't appear to be a leading character in a Camus novel?

According to Lu Xun, "hope cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. It is just like roads across the earth. For actually the earth had no roads to begin with, but when many men pass one way, a road is made."

This is like a compliment to me. Now you mention it, I do feel like Mercault when he is executed for not caring about his mother's death enough. Too much respect for the dead, not enough for the living.

Anyway, to the previous paragraph, I am not interested in philosophy so I can impress women and fit into society better, like you, presumably. Your bourgeois complacency nauseates me. Which philosopher of merit was not an iconoclast?

Niebla, a Spanish existentialist novel by Unamuno. I'm sure there is an English translation. You might like it if you haven't already read it.

In the words of Woody Allen, "sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go, it's pretty damn good."

Thanks.

If you want to be original and philosophical using your Logic 101 phrasing and argumentative structure

"This isn't complicated enough, it must be wrong!"

And no, my orginality is incidental.

Gui, you're such a fucking hipster at philosophy. You're too cool for Camus, they have to be utterly obscure ("I'm sure there is an English translation"), a thousand years old ("It was common knowledge in the 7th century"), or both.

are we creating a tl;dr thread??