Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Phallus Pendulus

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5
is capitulation all that remains for philosophy?


I admit, though, the furious reaction of reddit-nerds to True Detective's ending was pretty amusing. "RUST REJECTED PESSIMISM...I FEEL TROLLED...WHO AM I SUPPOSED TO ADMIRE NOW???"  :'( :'( :'(

I personally liked the ending. Taking the "dark and cynical" option is the easiest path to critical praise, which  and it's a credit to Pizzolatto that he defied people's expectations and went with an ending of hard-earned optimism and lots of untied loose ends.

Everything about that was great except for "if the universe lacks meaning you have to create your own". Euggghhh. All the quasi psychotic seething right wing rage that guy spouts was summed up in that awfully oppressive line. Imagine facing nihilism and deciding you have a duty to create your own meaning in response to it, as if you could redeem your self. Everything I despise about western culture is summed up in that dreadful attitude. It's an actual INABILITY to recognize the unconscious metaphysical defaults that so totally structure your thinking, so you end up genuinely believing the self has to make up for the humiliation of a now dead god.

Yes, having to create your own (admittedly subjective and arbitrary) meaning must be terribly oppressive when one is a mentally inadequate and socially stunted manchild as you clearly are.

(LOL at "psychotic right-wing rage", as well.)

I tend towards the "Many Worlds" explanation, although it's probably just another way to look at "Zero Worlds" (and thus, idealism).

For all I know, neither is accurate and both are just ways for our primate brains to look at something we can't really understand...

What's even more childish and laughable is "Atheism +", a movement of whiny bloghags that tries to combine New Atheism with sentimental bleating and various social justice issues.

These guys are pretty well summed up by this pic:

Interesting. Who do you consider to be the Conan of atheism? Instead of these manchildren I mean :)

Atheism, being a lack of religious belief, doesn't need a "prophet", lol. That's kinda the point.

If I had to decide on a "Conan of atheism", Daniel Dennett is far superior to Dawkins and Hitchens.

Have not read many of these New Atheists, only Sam Harris and Hitchens.

Harris is okay, although a bit of a misty-eyed moralist who sometimes uses religious terms when it suits him.

Hitchens was annoying and smug, he was like the older generation of the Amazing Atheist. More fit to be a stand-up comedian than an intellectual


I read the essay "Alan Watts and the Neuroscience of Transcendence" a couple years ago. This reminds me a bit of that essay.

Do you believe in the theory of quantum particles (which sometimes disappear and re-appear mysteriously) vanishing into alternate universes?

What interests me about quantum mechanics is that the world of sub-atomic particles is almost its own world, governed by rules and causes that we humans barely even begin to understand (yet). The deeper you go into the physical foundations of nature, the further away from human reason and common sense you get. IIRC, Bakker said something similar about neuroscience - you get to a point where "normal" logic and common sense don't apply anymore.

(Bakker was making a point about Pavlov and the behaviorists, AFAIK. They ran into the same "wall" where the human brain's inner workings just couldn't be described by common sense anymore. Not that this has anything to do with quantum physics, just that it's a similar case of the human brain only going so far.) 

New Atheists,  with their moral crusading against religion, are the complete opposite of true atheism. They're manchildren still stuck in their kiddie-rebellion phase, for the most part.

The Almanac: PON Edition / Re: TDTCB, Ch. 7
« on: March 06, 2014, 02:44:06 pm »
One of my favorite chapters. When Bakker really makes the effort, he can write almost any subject pretty well; we see him writing political intrigue in this Momemn chapter. It's a shame he limits himself to the same blind brain topic these days, both in his books and blog posts.

Lots of parallels to Roman history in this chapter. Conphas has a lot in common with Germanicus (nephew of the emperor, military leader, loved by everyone after a genocide of barbarians), while Xerius reminds me of Tiberius (emperor of Rome, paranoid and suspicious of everyone). The wheeling and dealing and scheming in Momemn is definitely inspired by the backstabbing of the Roman court.

Philosophy & Science / Re: The "Intellectual Bitterness" Thread
« on: February 24, 2014, 01:18:18 am »
Hmmm. If bitterness is the only outcome, than I am not "intelectually different". I agree that it is common though. Depends on who you decide got it "right". If you are convinced by depressed dead Germans, French etc then you will most likely be bitter and depressed. If you are convinced by a happy guru, then you will be happy. This is not really convincing is it? There is of course much more to it than that, but in a very broad sense, I do think that it boils down to this.

Depression has far more to do with neurology, environment, genetic predispositions, etc. The idea that serious depression is around the corner if you pick up a Nietzsche book, and can be cured with a happy self-help guru book, isn't convincing at all.

(Nietzsche himself seems to have believed that morality was entirely your own choice. Slave morality was something you learned at Sunday school, and master morality was something you could He-Man yourself into. Nowadays, of course, we know that's not the case. I'd recommend Jon Haidt's The Righteous Mind.)

Philosophy & Science / Re: Suicide or not
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:09:13 pm »
The very existence of "purpose" and "value" as aspects of conscious experience makes the OP wrong.

(I'm not sure what the OP really means via the word "value". Is he talking about intrinsic goals and/or purposes? Is he considering material outcomes, or even meta-physical or spiritual outcomes? Does he consider the difference between subjective and objective valuations?)

Philosophy & Science / Re: Suicide or not
« on: February 12, 2014, 03:01:18 am »
OP, we can't solve the meaning of life for you. Do it yourself.

And for fuck's sake, stop reading other depressed people's texts. Tom Ligotti, suicide notes, etc etc. It'll just get you stuck in an endless loop of negativity.

I've known other depressive cases, a lot them seek out opinions like their own so they can wallow in their sadness and feel like WAH WAH NOBODY UNDERSTANDS ME and affirm their own negative beliefs (Holy moral certainty, Bakker!). Don't get stuck in that situation.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Suicide or not
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:27:00 pm »
This. Although suffering can feel overwhelmingly real, just as ecstacy is a overwhelmingly positive feeling. Feelings are tricky.
I know.

I was just telling OP that he's not making sense: either both him and his suffering are real, or neither of them are.

Philosophy & Science / Re: Suicide or not
« on: February 11, 2014, 02:05:48 pm »
Oh, and the infamous Tom Ligotti book you linked to, I've read it years ago. Here's a fairly good response to his EVERYTHING IS HORRIBLY USELESS author tract:

Stop reading books by mentally diseased people, and start reading things you actually enjoy. Don't start wallowing in this negativity or get stuck in a feedback loop.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5