Comments

  • Deep Songs


    I told you before stay away from my door
    Don't give me that brother, brother, brother, brother
    The freaks on the phone won't leave me alone
    So don't give me that brother, brother, brother, brother, oh

    I, I found out
    I, I found out

    Now that I showed you what I been through
    Don't take nobody's word what you can do
    There ain't no Jesus gonna come from the sky
    Now that I found out I know I can cry

    I, I found out
    I, I found out

    Some of you sitting there with your cock in your hand
    Don't get you nowhere, don't make you a man
    I heard something 'bout my ma and my pa
    They didn't want me so they made me a star

    I, I found out
    I, I found out

    Old Hare Krishna got nothing on you
    Just keep you crazy with nothing to do
    Keep you occupied with pie in the sky
    There ain't no Guru who can see through your eyes

    I, I found out
    I, I found out

    I seen through junkies, I been through it all
    I've seen religion from Jesus to Paul
    Don't let them fool you with dope and cocaine
    No one harm you feel your own pain

    I, I found out
    I, I found this out
    I, I found out
    Ah
    Ah
    Ah
    Ah
    Ah
    Ah
    Ah
  • Was Magritte that a philosophical painter?


    Wasn’t familiar with his work until now. I recognized the one with the apple in front of the guys face. It was a cover to a Searle book I read.

    Anyway, I liked some of the images I found. I think you can find double meanings in some of his works; like “the false mirror” or “clairvoyance” or “the double secret.” Some of it seems absurdist, and just playing with reality, but I think that counts as philosophical. I also posted a couple Slavec Gruca paintings in the beautiful things thread. I see some resemblance between the two artists. Gruca is just on deviant art as far as I can tell, if you’re interested.
  • What are you chasing after with philosophy?


    I think following would be a better description than chasing. Curiosity leads me wherever it wishes..somehow I’ve found myself here. :chin:
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    So if you participate in a discussion about the point of religion (present tense), you need to look at what religious people espouse/believe, not what you do.Ennui Elucidator

    I’m fine playing by your rules. But, I’d like to know what exactly your position is. Do you think religions were intended to be non-literal? Why or why not?

    BTW, my personal religious views are irrelevant, as are yours. I’ve no concern in converting others, or what have you. I’m open to the idea that religions are meant to be metaphorical, but I just haven’t seen any good evidence of that. They do make empirical claims that I think most people would be hard pressed to interpret any way other than literal, but that’s just me.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Everything for you is an argument. Who is justifying what to whom? Actual members of the religious community don’t have to justify to you. And internally, they may not justify to one another - they simply receive what has come before.Ennui Elucidator

    Dude, this is a philosophy forum. Do you not expect to be asked to justify your assertions? You’re asserting that the correct interpretation of religious texts is non-literal. I’m asking you why. I’m asking because to me the more logical assumption to make is that they mean what they say. So when they say the universe was created in 7 days, it’s literally what they mean, unless there’s reason to doubt this. I find no reason to do so other than to rectify its contradiction with science.

    The question is not WHY they believe what they do, but whether religious people accept that their sacred myths are allegorical and not historical.Ennui Elucidator

    I’m not talking about beliefs of religious people at all. I’m talking about religious founders intentions. The question is why do you think these religious founders did not intend for their teachings, sayings, etc. to be taken literally?

    You made the claim that no religious group admits that their stories are not making factual claims. When shown evidence to the contrary, you want to argue about why they admit it and whether their admission qualifies according to your as-of-yet undisclosed standard.Ennui Elucidator

    What evidence? We both agreed, or so I thought, that there was no evidence of what the religious founders intentions were. That means we’re both assuming what their intentions were. I’m asking why you’re making the assumption you are. But, regarding evidence, if the Pope admitted Christianity was fictional, that would fit the bill. But, my guess is that you could ask just about any Christian, Muslim, Jew, etc. if their religion is fictional, and they would say no. Almost nobody believes that, because there’s no reason to believe that. That is never suggested by the people who started the religions, or by those who commented on religion in the beginning. My theory is that interpreting the Bible (and therefore Christianity), for example, in a non-literal way only began when the Bible’s empirical claims began to clash with newly discovered scientific facts.

    The bottom line is that if religions are truly meant to be interpreted non-literally, then the people who created those religions would more than likely have made that intention known. There’s no evidence that they suggested that was their intentions. Therefore, it’s more likely that that was not their intent.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    What evidence do you have about the “founders” intentions from 3,500 years ago?Ennui Elucidator

    Well, there’s plenty of testimonial evidence. The Bibles I’ve seen have Christ’s words printed in red ink. What is the proper assumption here? That those quotes are inaccurate or correct?

    So far as I know, there is no “evidence” either way and the most we have is some writings from about 1,000 years later.Ennui Elucidator

    Ok, I’m fine with agreeing with that. So then the question is one of the accuracy of the writings of disciples. To me, if there was ever any indication that Abraham, for example, didn’t literally believe Yahweh created the world in 7 days it would have been mentioned. IOW’s, I take whatever religious text you want to use at face value. Trying to twist or interpret scriptural empirical claims as metaphor seems like a post-hoc attempt at justifying believing the claims when they stand in contradiction to agreed upon scientific facts. Maybe it isn’t, but that’s how it appears.

    Is the argument that he is lying? Or that Jews don’t know who he is? That they disavowed him? That somehow every Jewish intellect that followed after him and acknowledge the non-literal nature of the Bible was just making it up?Ennui Elucidator

    No, the argument is that a handful of people interpreting a text a certain way doesn’t mean their interpretation is correct. This also obviously applies to literalist interpretations as well. So, the question is which interpretation is better justified? So, what actually is the justification for a non-literal interpretation? That it doesn’t jive with established scientific facts?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    This just doesn’t feel like a good faith question. Are you asking to be educated, being rhetorical, or being dismissive? The statement wasEnnui Elucidator

    Just asking for clarification.

    Perhaps we’re misunderstanding one another. You seem to be claiming that religions, at least some religions, admit that they are simply retelling a fictional tale filled with truths about life and how to live. And I’m using the term “truths” here very loosely. I’m just asking for evidence, because to the best of my knowledge, no religions make such claims. The founders of the Abrahamic religions made no such claim that I’m aware of, nor did the Eastern religious founders. Also, the vast majority of the followers of these religions make no such claim.

    So why are you seemingly convinced that they were never intended to make factual claims? And by “factual claims” I mean claims about the origin of the universe, life, claims of the existence of supernatural deities, etc. In short, empirical claims. Do any of these religions explicitly say, or even imply, that these claims are meant to be metaphorical, allegorical, or fictional? I understand it’s possible to interpret these texts/claims metaphorically, but that isn’t evidence that that was the founders intentions.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    Religions do admit it. Some religions don't. If you want to argue about what Christians believe, argue about Christianity, not about "religion."Ennui Elucidator

    I didn’t bring up Christianity specifically. Which religions admit to being fiction? Pastafarianism?
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    That misses the point. The OP seems to be questioning whether or not religions are intended to be factual. My response is that if they were not, then we wouldn’t even be having this conversation, because they wouldn’t try making factual claims. Also, it’s debatable whether or not secular humanism is a religion. Are you arguing that all religions should become like secular humanism? I’m fine with that if you are, but they are quite far away from that at this time, as should be obvious.
  • what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?
    But what if the goal of a religion is not to be factually correct, but to give people moral guidance, thumos and social cohesion?stoicHoneyBadger

    Then religions should admit it instead of clinging to the irrationality of their beliefs by making a virtue of faith.

    Giving moral guidance in a form of only 10 commandments or 4 noble truth, etc. just printed on a page would not have much interest, so it need to be wrapped in an intriguing story of a hero living out those believes.stoicHoneyBadger

    Ok, but then why not make it plainly known that it’s fiction? It isn’t like knowing that X book is fictional makes it impossible for it to provide meaningful moral lessons.
  • Beautiful Things
    Just to be clear, I didn't mean to suggest that I don't think it belongs in this thread.T Clark

    No worries. I didn’t take your comment like that.
  • Beautiful Things


    In case anyone isn’t familiar with Whitkin’s work, he is a photographer and often uses corpses and/or body parts for his photographs. In order to do this he made arrangements with local morgues who would essentially give him any bodies that went unclaimed/unidentified. So, he never really knew what he would be getting. With this particular image, so the story goes, he was lifting this head out of the box it came in, and dropped it. He didn’t realize that it had been dissected vertically, and when it landed it came apart and landed pretty much how he ended up photographing it. I mention this to show that I don’t think there was much intent involved on the part of the artist to create something with a specific meaning.

    To me, I associate the image with Narcissus, or vanity. He is literally kissing himself. Couple that with the fact that this is a dismembered head and it brings about the contrast between “loving life” and “death.” Were this picture taken of two living people, it would appear very tender and loving. So, to me it kind of captures both tenderness/love on the one hand, and disgust/death on the other. There’s something I find fascinating about the ability to transform something that’s typically, or stereotypically, beautiful and lovey-dovey, like a kiss, into something darker. And just the ability to capture these different juxtapositions in one image is kind of awe inspiring for me. But it could be read into as a sort of warning about the perils of vanity, like Narcissus. Or you could interpret it as showing that most likely this person loved his life before he died, which again brings tenderness into an otherwise morbid image. But anyway, that’s my long winded explanation.
  • Beautiful Things


    Umm… it kinda depends. I mean, if I saw that in real life I’d probably puke, but I find beauty in it more so in how I interpret its meaning than just its aesthetics. I guess it’s similar to how people find stories beautiful. It has nothing to do with the way the words look. It’s about their meaning.
  • Beautiful Things
    Joel-Peter Whitkin- “The Kiss”

    ?resize_to=fit&width=638&height=640&quality=80&src=https%3A%2F%2Fd32dm0rphc51dk.cloudfront.net%2FtrYLoStLlnn3uo_SI1JGkA%2Flarge.jpg
  • What are you listening to right now?
    You sound like me. Always liked Radiohead, but never loved them. But yeah, this new album seems interesting.

  • Medical Issues
    I’m in my mid-thirties and have asthma, low cholesterol, toenail fungus, obesity (maybe), astigmatism, and a heart murmur. Probably some mild undiagnosed mental illness(es) as well. Had rheumatic fever as a child also. No broken bones or surgeries except for a biopsy on an enlarged lymph node when I was little.
  • Deep Songs


    [Verse 1]
    (Slave screams)
    He thinks he knows what he wants
    (Slave screams)
    Thinks he has something to say
    (Slave screams)
    He hears but doesn't want to listen
    (Slave screams)
    He's being beat into submission

    [Chorus 1]
    Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
    The devils of truth steal the souls of the free
    Don't open your eyes, take it from me
    I have found you can find happiness in slavery
    Happiness in slavery

    [Verse 2]
    (Slave screams)
    He spends his life learning conformity
    (Slave screams)
    He claims he has his own identity
    (Slave screams)
    He's going to cause the system to fall
    (Slave screams)
    But he's glad to be chained to that wall

    [Chorus 2]
    Don't open your eyes you won't like what you see
    The blind have been blessed with security
    Don't open your eyes, take it from me
    I have found you can find happiness in slavery
    Happiness in slavery
    Happiness in slavery
    Happiness in slavery
    Happiness...

    [Bridge]
    I don't know what I am, I don't know where I've been;
    Human junk, just words and so much skin
    Stick my hands through the cage of this endless routine
    Just some flesh caught in this big broken machine

    [Outro]
    Happiness in slavery (x18)
    Happiness
    Happiness
    It controls you
    Happiness
    It controls you
  • What are your favourite music albums, or favourite music artists?

    Cool list. I at least recognize everyone’s name, but can’t say I’ve listened to many of the albums in full. Cool to see Little Richard in there, I think he’s under appreciated. AC/DC seems surprising somewhat considering the rest of the list. Do you have a similar list for 1980-now?
  • Short Story Competition Discussion

    :up:


    No need to apologize. At the very least it was interesting to read a style I’m not accustomed to.
  • Short Story Competition Discussion
    Shocked @180 Proof wrote Good Stew. That’s the one story I had the hardest time making it through (no disrespect intended).

    @hypericin Flight was very close to getting my vote. At first, I didn’t read into it, or even consider it was an allegory, but @Outlander(?)’s post made me think more about it, and my interpretation of it afterwards was really enjoyable.

    @Hanover got my vote. In the end it was the most memorable. I enjoyed the humor. But, for future reference, I think it would have been cool to have categories for the voting (I.e. funniest, deepest, best written, etc.).

    @Noble Dust I really liked Hitchhikers. I think the sort of “Twilight Zone” vibe worked. It’s surrealism/incoherence didn’t bother me. It felt like it was just descriptive at first about the incident, and then turned into a sort of daydream or the imagination of the driver.

    @darthbarracuda I also enjoyed your story. I like that it was unconventional. There was nothing spectacular about the writing style, which fit perfectly for the telling of Auguste’s unspectacular life.

    @tim wood Remembrance was nice. Very personal and intimate, but I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was sort of cliche; thinking of a loved one on one’s deathbed. But it did illustrate well how sometimes the people no longer in our lives impact it the most, and how oftentimes this goes unspoken.

    @Jack Cummins I think my issue with your story is just about taste. Ghost stories always have that affect on me. But it didn’t strike me as poorly written or anything like that. Just not my cup of tea.

    @Baden At times I liked the juxtaposition of happy, cheery holidays and abusive asshole, but at other times it seemed forced. Very well written though.

    @Benkei I Never Was sort of falls into the same issue as Jack’s. I just can’t get into Sci-Fi. But, I did think the disappearing notebook was a novel way of writing about time travel.

    Congrats to everyone who participated. I thought it was really cool to see everyone’s creative side, and enjoyed the competition. I hope to have something to submit for the next one.
  • Short Story Competition Discussion
    My guess:

    Dead Baby Shoes- @Hanover
    Hitchhikers- @180 Proof
    Stanley the Reindeer- @Baden
    Ghosts in my Hands- @Jack Cummins
    I Never Was- @Noble Dust
    Untitled- @darthbarracuda
    We are not Alone- @hypericin
    Good Stew- AI
    A Weak Foundation- @god must be atheist
    Flight- @Benkei
    Remembrance- @Leghorn
  • Golden Rule, Morality and BDSM
    Good question. X wants ass-kissing and Y wants no ass-kissing. So, what happens when the two of them meet? X would think, I can't let Y kiss my ass. Y would think, I have to kiss X's ass. This'll happen: Y will try and kiss X's ass but X won't let Y kiss ass. Both are happy!TheMadFool

    :lol:

    But seriously, the narcissist can’t both want Y to kiss his ass, and not want Y to do so. You’re assuming X wants to treat Y as Y wants to be treated, but that isn’t the case. It results in an imbalance. Y gets what Y wants (respect), but X doesn’t.

    Maybe in cases like these, where how one wants to be treated conflicts with how someone else wants to be treated, the Golden Rule should be used as a Plan B? X doesn’t want to be forced to kiss someone’s ass, so shouldn’t force Y to do so. Problem solved!
  • The Shoutbox


    No worries, I didn’t take offense. The series is comprised of three separate shows; Trollhunters, 3 Below, and Wizards. There’s a couple seasons of each show. Also, a movie was just released to act as it’s conclusion, maybe, called Titans of Arcadia. There all animated too BTW, and geared more towards kids, but I liked it regardless (as did my daughter). :grin:
  • Golden Rule, Morality and BDSM


    Ok, but why does the person’s wants the narcissist encounters trump his own? The narcissist demands X (ass kissing), the other person demands Y (respect), but only Y is honored.
  • The Shoutbox


    Not really surprised, it’s a kid’s show after all, but in one of the series’s seasons (Wizards) the tale of King Arthur is it’s theme. Arthur actually becomes the Green Knight. The series is based on Del Torro’s comics, and he produced or directed it.
  • The Shoutbox
    The Green Knight himself was awesome; the creature design reminded me of a Guillermo del Toro vibe.Noble Dust

    Referring to the Tales of Arcadia series by chance?
  • Golden Rule, Morality and BDSM
    Rules are meant for everyone. The narcissist who wants people to bow before faer and kiss faer ass must consider the fact that other people don't want to bow to faer or kiss faer ass. Thus, a narcissist shouldn't demand such things.TheMadFool

    This doesn’t seem to jive with the Diamond Rule though, at least as you’ve described it, or perhaps as I’ve (mis)understood it.

    If we’re to let others define our actions, that holds us accountable for treating them the way they want to be treated independent of how we actually want to treat them. I don’t see where the obligation of the narcissist to consider others wants when he decides how he wants to be treated is derived from.
  • Golden Rule, Morality and BDSM
    2. The Diamond Rule: Do unto others as others would like to do unto themselves (Others define your actions. You do what others want you to do to them. Others are the measure of your actions]TheMadFool

    If taken to extremes this creates problems as well. What if I would like you to have sex with me? Are you duty bound to do so? Or perhaps I’m narcissistic and think you should greet me by bowing when I enter the room, and bid me farewell by kissing my ass on the way out. Is that acceptable?

    As an alternative, let’s try the Platinum Rule: Treat others however you want, but adjust your behavior when asked to do so (trial and error).
  • What are you listening to right now?

    I use my phone only, so couldn’t see it either. But if you turn your phone sideways you’ll see more options. If that’s the issue.

    Anyway… everyone’s favorite song in California.

  • Short Story Competition Discussion
    In fine, I think this latest movement of athletes of color to fold under pressure and then appeal to popular sentiment to bolster their weakness is really just a cop-out.Leghorn

    You seem to be implying athletes of color are weak, which is blatantly racist. Cop-out? Are you oblivious to the irony in that assertion?

    Anyway, you want to question the motives of athletes of color who back out of tournaments for mental health issues, which seems suspect IMO. I am more curious as to the reason you feel the need to connect these incidents into some universal conspiracy. Do you seriously believe these athletes do not want to compete, or would rather make some political statement than do so? What reason do have to doubt their motives/intentions? The only reason I can think of is that it’s convenient in that it fits the racist narrative you’re trying to push, that people of color are inferior.
  • Flight by hypericin

    Maybe the Jew represents fear?

    Anyway, I enjoyed it. I interpreted it as being about life. How no matter how tied up we all get with our own lives, and how important it all seems, it’s all meaningless. The plane is crashing, and “life,” the indulgences we fill our time with, is just an elaborate diversion from the fact of death.

    [edit] I meant to add this song. It was playing in my head while I was reading it.

  • Why is so much allure placed on the female form?

    My guess would be something to do with evolution. Females are responsible for birth, in a manner of speaking, and are therefore inherently more valuable. The typical hourglass shape coveted by men is a sign of good reproductive health; wider hips allow childbirth to be easier, for example.
  • What are you listening to right now?


    I saw this earlier today :cry:

    (I always wanted my own club called "Have Mercy" :naughty:)180 Proof

    Rev. Gibbons beat you to it. Hot Sauce

    Here’s one with Dusty’s vocals: