Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

Doc Dutch said:
That's the best part!
Click to expand...

That's it, Doc. Make sure to stoke Cypress's anger. He has anger issues which he hides in his usual fashion by claiming to be so much more than a mere human.

And when someone makes a point he won't engage with it unless he can be assured he will be validated. That's a sign of a weak intellect. Just like you! The only difference is you are much more aggressively vile.

Isn't it funny, though, that we all actually agree on far more than we disagree. We are all usually on a similar side when talking to anyone else. Only problem for you and Cypress is that on those occasions when I disagree I can usually support my position and you can't really. Guess that's what real education looks like as opposed to community college and/or sitting around running up mommy and daddy's credit card buying books on Amazon.
 
BidenPresident said:
"Individual" is a quantification. Does not mean the same as "self," which implies the psychology of inwardness.
Click to expand...

Understood. So your contention is that prior to the Romans no one actually had a "self" since you claim the Romans created the concept. As such I'm curious how people saw their own existence in relation to others around them. By your metric they wouldn't have seen themselves as being separate from the others around them.

I guess that becomes more confusing when you find people referencing themselves in documents prior to the Romans because that would indicate a sense of "self".
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Understood. So your contention is that prior to the Romans no one actually had a "self" since you claim the Romans created the concept. As such I'm curious how people saw their own existence in relation to others around them. By your metric they wouldn't have seen themselves as being separate from the others around them.

I guess that becomes more confusing when you find people referencing themselves in documents prior to the Romans because that would indicate a sense of "self".
Click to expand...

Clearly you did not understand what I wrote.
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
That's it, Doc. Make sure to stoke Cypress's anger. He has anger issues which he hides in his usual fashion by claiming to be so much more than a mere human.

And when someone makes a point he won't engage with it unless he can be assured he will be validated. That's a sign of a weak intellect. Just like you! The only difference is you are much more aggressively vile.

Isn't it funny, though, that we all actually agree on far more than we disagree. We are all usually on a similar side when talking to anyone else. Only problem for you and Cypress is that on those occasions when I disagree I can usually support my position and you can't really. Guess that's what real education looks like as opposed to community college and/or sitting around running up mommy and daddy's credit card buying books on Amazon.
Click to expand...
Everyone can become angry, but not everyone has “anger issues.” From my observations, Cypress doesn’t have any anger issues or other mental issues. Especially when compared to you, Perry. :D

Why would any sane, intelligent, educated person repeatedly engage with a lying nutjob sock puppeteer who has proved be a disingenuous person?

Perry, you’re a lot like Trump; you believe just repeatedly claiming the same thing makes it true. It’s not.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Everyone can become angry, but not everyone has “anger issues.” From my observations, Cypress doesn’t have any anger issues or other mental issues. Especially when compared to you, Perry. :D

Why would any sane, intelligent, educated person repeatedly engage with a lying nutjob sock puppeteer who has proved be a disingenuous person?

Perry, you’re a lot like Trump; you believe just repeatedly claiming the same thing makes it true. It’s not.
Click to expand...

You would be extremely hard pressed to find any examples of me in the last decade here cussing, cursing out other posters, going ballistic, or screaming in all caps bold red font.

I reserve the right to choose my friends and choose which people are worth having discussions with. Sock puppeteers are not posting in good faith.
 
BidenPresident said:
Clearly you did not understand what I wrote.
Click to expand...

Well, it kind of read like transcribed glossolalia. You seem to want to obfuscate a clear message by couching it in a blizzard of sui generis definitions.

You could, if you wished, probably explain your point better but I suspect that is never top priority in these sorts of things.
 
Doc Dutch said:
Everyone can become angry, but not everyone has “anger issues.” From my observations, Cypress doesn’t have any anger issues or other mental issues. Especially when compared to you, Perry. :D

Why would any sane, intelligent, educated person repeatedly engage with a lying nutjob sock puppeteer who has proved be a disingenuous person?

Perry, you’re a lot like Trump; you believe just repeatedly claiming the same thing makes it true. It’s not.
Click to expand...

I love how you can't address a serious point. You seem to really love getting down and dirty with folks. More bile for your unending hunger for it.

Like I said, it seems that in terms of politics and social issues we aren't that far apart (unless you are actively lying in most of your posts). I just wish you weren't such a hateful bastard. I like a lot of what you say when you aren't actively attacking people.
 
Cypress said:
You would be extremely hard pressed to find any examples of me in the last decade here cussing, cursing out other posters, going ballistic, or screaming in all caps bold red font.
Click to expand...

But you still insult and belittle and get nasty with people while using small font. Funny how that works.

I reserve the right to choose my friends and choose which people are worth having discussions with. Sock puppeteers are not posting in good faith.
Click to expand...

You have friends?
 
I haven't read all 200+ posts on this thread.

Have we determined how a non-existent self could actually have an illusion?
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
But you still insult and belittle and get nasty with people while using small font. Funny how that works.



You have friends?
Click to expand...

I have a rule that I don't treat seriously posters with anger issues who scream at me in super-sized all caps bold red font, who constantly change accounts names and sock puppets, and change their biographical background stories.
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
I love how you can't address a serious point. You seem to really love getting down and dirty with folks. More bile for your unending hunger for it.

Like I said, it seems that in terms of politics and social issues we aren't that far apart (unless you are actively lying in most of your posts). I just wish you weren't such a hateful bastard. I like a lot of what you say when you aren't actively attacking people.
Click to expand...

LOL. Now tell me again that you’re a doctor. That’s the part I love the most. :)
 
Cypress said:
I have a rule that I don't treat seriously posters with anger issues who scream at me in super-sized all caps bold red font, who constantly change accounts names and sock puppets, and change their biographical background stories.
Click to expand...

I have a rule that when I meet a pseudo-intellectual who thinks so much of themselves that they are a dick that I do my best to take them down a peg or two when possible. Remember, you are just a person. You aren't as smart as you want people to think you are and you have problems too.
 
Doc Dutch said:
LOL. Now tell me again that you’re a doctor. That’s the part I love the most. :)
Click to expand...

Go ahead, tell me you're a dick. Ooops! You just did!


Isn't it funny that neither you nor Cypress could respond meaningfully to the point I made about thoughts earlier? Remember when Cypress was talking about how to control your thinking? I even provided a reference. Cypress couldn't respond to it because it wasn't an agreement with his bullshit post so he had to make it an attack. Et viola you show up to continue the attacks.

For a change of pace: Try fucking addressing the point and not just attacking people.

Here's the point again for your reference:

1. It is not necessarily a good thing to "control your thoughts", this is kind of standard in a lot of psychology. You can control how you RESPOND to your thoughts but your thoughts happen.
2. Cypress is lying when he says he doesn't have thoughts that were negative things he listed. No one is free of those.
3. Most thinking is done subconsciously so it isn't possible to really "control" your thoughts.
4. Yes, you can focus the "monkey mind" but that isn't the same as controlling your thoughts or even eliminating normal human thoughts as Cypress claims he has.

Now, continue attacking me or respond to the points meaningfully and we can have a rational discussion.

It's topics apparently both of you think you have some experience with, so I'd be glad to see your actual thinking and not just personal attacks.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I haven't read all 200+ posts on this thread.

Have we determined how a non-existent self could actually have an illusion?
Click to expand...

BidenPresident is lost in his sui generis definitions. Cypress and Doc have taken to personally attacking me as they usually do rather than address the points I raised.

So I think the answer is: "NO".
 
Cardinal Carminative said:
Well, it kind of read like transcribed glossolalia. You seem to want to obfuscate a clear message by couching it in a blizzard of sui generis definitions.

You could, if you wished, probably explain your point better but I suspect that is never top priority in these sorts of things.
Click to expand...

A box of candy has 20 individually wrapped pieces of chocolate. We do not call them selves.
For last time, you willfully conflate "individual" with "self." Cut the junior high antics and debate like a mature adult, ok?
 
BidenPresident said:
A box of candy has 20 individually wrapped pieces of chocolate. We do not call them selves.
For last time, you willfully conflate "individual" with "self." Cut the junior high antics and debate like a mature adult, ok?
Click to expand...

Pieces of chocolate cannot have a sense of self as they lack a brain. Hence your example is flawed from the outset.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top