Eastern philosophy says the self is an illusion

[Cypress]

No, let me rephrase it so it is more clear: the FEELINGS are perfectly normal and one shouldn't try to control the THOUGHTS. It's the REACTION to those thoughts that counts.

This is at the heart of things like CBT in Psychology. It is related to Mindfulness. I would highly recommend adding in some mindfulness reading to your various philosophy reading.

Basically the goal here is to NOT control the thoughts but control how we react to those thoughts.

I am free to think whatever I want about you but I'm not free to harm you in some way. I can hate you incandescently but if I am calm and respond to you rationally and without that hate manifesting then I'm doing well. But if I seek to NOT feel something, well you are familiar with the "Don't think of an Elephant" type experiments, so you presumably get my point.

So you finally concede there is more to a human life than factual or formal knowledge.

There is the normative knowledge we all need to function as human beings.

Normative knowledge: child abuse is always wrong, cold blooded murder is always wrong, all other things being equal beneficence is better then avarice, all other things being equal pathological lying is always wrong

Factual knowledge: Iraq is north of the equator.

Formal knowledge: the square root of negative one is an imaginary number.



On a day to day basis in real life, you need normative knowledge more than you need the formal knowledge of math and experimental science.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Normative knowledge: child abuse is always wrong, cold blooded murder is always wrong,

So what about polar bears that kill the cubs of rivals? Is that murder? Is it murder for the well-fed housecat to kill a song bird even when not hungry?

No, of course not. Because these supposed "always wrong" actions are not always wrong. They are wrong FOR US as humans. And that's because we are biologically SOCIAL ANIMALS which gain a survival advantage from a stable and safe society.

Our society is not, in any way, harmed when a well-fed housecat murders an innocent bird. Is murder always wrong? It would if one person murdered another person.

 

[Cypress]

So what about polar bears that kill the cubs of rivals? Is that murder? Is it murder for the well-fed housecat to kill a song bird even when not hungry?

No, of course not. Because these supposed "always wrong" actions are not always wrong. They are wrong FOR US as humans. And that's because we are biologically SOCIAL ANIMALS which gain a survival advantage from a stable and safe society.

Our society is not, in any way, harmed when a well-fed housecat murders an innocent bird. Is murder always wrong? It would if one person murdered another person.

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about polar bears and cats. Is this where you start mentioning that dogs and squirrels are basically just like humans?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Seriously, dude, to my knowledge Gaugin was just an impressionist painter whose work I didn't much like. That's why I mentioned him. I didn't realize he was what you said.

I'm not going to apologize because I didn't call you anything bad. I just made another art joke which you flipped out over, like you did with Tom of Finland.

If you want to go digging up every bad thing about every artist that's fine. Just don't assume everyone's brain goes to that same dark shit.

Do you get equally upset when they play Gary Glitter's "Rock and Roll Part 2" at sporting events too?

You're a well known liar who is delusional enough to believe the mods are stupid. Fine, Perry. Let's see how far that goes. LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Jesus Christ, we're not talking about polar bears. Is this where you start mentioning that dogs and squirrels are basically just like humans?

I was hoping you would understand the concept. You seem to want this "normative knowledge" to have some "universality" to it and I'm showing you it has nothing like that.

The point I made was that what you are somehow comparing to natural laws are nothing of the sort. They are just ARBITRARY MODES OF BEHAVIOR THAT BENEFIT ONE ANIMALS AND ONE ANIMAL ONLY. These supposed "truths" you find are easily explained by biology.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

You're a well known liar who is delusional enough to believe the mods are stupid. Fine, Perry. Let's see how far that goes. LOL

Like I said: I didn't know Gaugin's penchants. Now I do, thanks to your knowledge of that field. Thanks. I'll make sure to only reference OTHER famous artists now so as not to trigger anyone.

 

[Cypress]

I was hoping you would understand the concept. You seem to want this "normative knowledge" to have some "universality" to it and I'm showing you it has nothing like that.

The point I made was that what you are somehow comparing to natural laws are nothing of the sort. They are just ARBITRARY MODES OF BEHAVIOR THAT BENEFIT ONE ANIMALS AND ONE ANIMAL ONLY. These supposed "truths" you find are easily explained by biology.

When we are discussing human knowledge, and you divert the topic into the behavior of cats, bears, and squirrels the discussion is over.


Your obviously signaled a tacit recognition I have always been correct in the statements that in normal, daily human existence we need more than that factual knowledge of sensory perception or the formal knowledge of mathmatical logic and scientific principles

We need the normative knowledge that allows us to function as human beings in real life.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

When we are discussing human knowledge, and you divert the topic into the behavior of cats, bears, and squirrels the discussion is over.

This may not comport with your particular religious convictions, but humans are animals. As such anytime you wish to talk about UNIVERSAL truths that apply to ONE animal you must accept that OTHER ANIMALS may be leveraged in the conversation.

Your obviously signaled a tacit recognition I have always been correct

I sense this is of utmost importance to you. Don't worry. I haven't.

We need the normative knowledge that allows us to function as human beings in real life.

Except that it has no "universality" or "natural law" feature to it. It is nothing more than an arbitrary set of rules that applies to only ONE animal and one animal alone. Ergo it is little more than a set of guides for that animal.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Like I said: I didn't know Gaugin's penchants. Now I do, thanks to your knowledge of that field. Thanks. I'll make sure to only reference OTHER famous artists now so as not to trigger anyone.

Translation: I think the mods are too fucking stupid to make the connection.



Oh, Perry. Your reputation precedes you.

The fact anyone who Googles him sees his notoriety as a pedophile to be among his most famous attributes isn't your fault, amirite, Perry PhD? Especially your special qualification: "In Tahiti". LOL

Like Gaugin in Tahitiat the nearest PS.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Translation: I think the mods are too fucking stupid to make the connection.



Oh, Perry. Your reputation precedes you.

The fact anyone who Googles him sees his notoriety as a pedophile to be among his most famous attributes isn't your fault, amirite, Perry PhD? Especially your special qualification: "In Tahiti". LOL

So is your expertise all of art history or just some select bits?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

When we are discussing human knowledge, and you divert the topic into the behavior of cats, bears, and squirrels the discussion is over.


Your obviously signaled a tacit recognition I have always been correct in the statements that in normal, daily human existence we need more than that factual knowledge of sensory perception or the formal knowledge of mathmatical logic and scientific principles

We need the normative knowledge that allows us to function as human beings in real life.

While I agree with your points, have you noticed Perry is trying to be especially nice and reasonable* after I reported his 12B violation by comparing me to the notorious French pedophile Gaugin?


*at least what passes for him as "reasonable". LOL

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Translation: I think the mods are too fucking stupid to make the connection.



Oh, Perry. Your reputation precedes you.

The fact anyone who Googles him sees his notoriety as a pedophile to be among his most famous attributes isn't your fault, amirite, Perry PhD? Especially your special qualification: "In Tahiti". LOL

I didn't google Gaugin. I just remembered my art classes and randomly picked a name of an artist whose stuff I'm not fond of. YOU took it to a much darker place. Not sure why.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So is your expertise all of art history or just some select bits?

Bits. When someone calls me a name, such as Gaugin, I'm curious why they specifically chose that name plus the add-on mystery of "in Tahiti". A quick Google reveals the answer; he was a pedophile. Now you, a well known liar, are claiming ignorance. Fine. Not my call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gauguin
...the artist's sexual relationships with teenage Tahitian girls, and the legacy of European colonialism in his work have been a subject of renewed scholarly debate and controversy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Bits. When someone calls me a name, such as Gaugin, I'm curious why they specifically chose that name plus the add-on mystery of "in Tahiti". A quick Google reveals the answer; he was a pedophile. Now you, a well known liar, are claiming ignorance. Fine. Not my call.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Gauguin
, the artist's sexual relationships with teenage Tahitian girls, and the legacy of European colonialism in his work have been a subject of renewed scholarly debate and controversy.

Your thing, not mine. I just knew him as an impressionist painter. The fact that this is the kind of information you quickly arrive at is not my issue or problem. I just picked an artist whose work I didn't much like.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to ask about any future art questions of this nature if this was a specialization in the arts.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I didn't google Gaugin. I just remembered my art classes and randomly picked a name of an artist whose stuff I'm not fond of. YOU took it to a much darker place. Not sure why.

I'm more of a reader, not an artist: "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

You tried to be cute and found out you're just as deluded as I know you are. Thanks for, once again, proving my point that nothing is ever your fault. It's always someone else's fault.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Your thing, not mine. I just knew him as an impressionist painter. The fact that this is the kind of information you quickly arrive at is not my issue or problem. I just picked an artist whose work I didn't much like.

Thanks for the heads up. I'll make sure to ask about any future art questions of this nature if this was a specialization in the arts.

What's my "thing", Perry. Please be clear...if you can.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

What's my "thing", Perry. Please be clear...if you can.

Art history.

That should have been obvious.

 

[BidenPresident]

Hume distinguishes the "is" from "ought." Today it is called the fact/value distinction. That values, or morals, cannot be derived from facts.

"In every system of morality, the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, it is necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

https://files.libertyfund.org/files/342/0213_Bk.pdf

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Art history.

That should have been obvious.

See, Perry? This is why I love it when you prove you are not living the same reality as others.

 

[Cypress]

While I agree with your points, have you noticed Perry is trying to be especially nice and reasonable* after I reported his 12B violation by comparing me to the notorious French pedophile Gaugin?


*at least what passes for him as "reasonable". LOL

Comparing a poster to Gaugin in Tahiti is a reference completely out of left field.