- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
No, I'd rather live short periods of time, and then die for a while. Yea. it'd be like a feature made of short psychedelic student films.
Living forever is too difficult, and I have a really short memory, knowing people for more than two years is confusing, and I know too many.
Excluding physical pain, suffering can be felt as many things, existential suffering, boredom, emotional, etc. These aspects of suffering are not physical, at least - we do not accept them as physical as physical pain, which too is not as physical as matter, then we may say that any suffering is quite metaphysical, don't we?
"feel on your skin" is a figure of speech in Hebrew, i wonder how i missed that.. What I meant by that paragraph was that you may say that evolution (the process, the thing which that idea points at) brought us greed and anger, and you may otherwise say that evolution (the theory, the volume of knowledge and its' memes) had us to believe that greed and anger are a nature, as if it is a fact beyond and outside of the theory of evolution.
That doesn't depict an encounter with your nature, what say is "I hurt my self, I feel the pain, every time I did something forceful and indelicate in some measure to my skin, I saw blood and felt pain, thus, I may extend it to a Rule by which I shall live, this and that causes this and that".
Just because you see a pattern doesn't make you a genius, or connected to some universal nature of things, actually, if enough people see the conclusion of your pattern as wrong or unsettling, as empirical as it may be - you are suddenly the official nut-case.
I'm not playing dumb, I can see that your example has some (if not much) Truthiness. But that is exactly the point, you Want to understand the nature of things and you draw your lines of how you are going to do that, you use logic, a scientific approach, but you fail to see that to say something like that about the nature of pain you will have to monitor it constantly, because you cannot ascribe something like that to the future, although you believe the nature of things will always stay as is always was.
Thus, competition is a major one in our surroundings, yes.
A quick review of (inevitably) written history tells that competition has been since the dawn of man, yes.
But to declare it as a part of our nature is to say "I'm not going to change that because I believe it OUGHT to be that way".
"Direct and clear" as in "There's a smaller chance of error"?
I didn't say your examples of the origin of suffering are false, I said it isn't AUTOMATICALLY transformed to suffering. There is a process there, in which a person realizes he is better off in some other condition, other surroundings, other mindset, other way - He says NO to his condition, his fate, what have you.. And only then there is suffering.
One may suffer from pretty much everything, a walk the park while dreaming of sex, a trip to the forest while dreaming of the desert, a visit at the clinic while dreaming of a video game, dreaming of a better world, anything..
And here's the point - one may stop these sufferings if he only accepts instead of strives.
I think that what most eastern philosophy is trying to tell you is "What is is just what is, you may want to change it, you may want to logically reconstruct it, you may want to save it, but all of these are new things, different from the subject that IS, new things that take you away from the what is, into what is not, and there, as all things there, is missing - the way home."
Suffering could be a synonymous to pain only if you refer to 'pain' as more than just physical pain, as in a broken bone, to the metaphysical, as in a broken heart, which you use easily in your arguments without being a philosopher, apparently.
Metaphysical is not Supernatural, you may want to look it up on wikipedia. Both, for that matter.
The problem with talking about our Nature in conceptual terms, or maybe talking about nature altogether is this, that you may ask yourself if Greed and Anger are manifestations of Evolution or it is the theory that built the ground-works for those feeling as you feel them on your skin, and explain them to yourself as "your nature", and "there is no way around it".
In order to use a word as "nature" in an argument, to prove a point, you need it to be treated with some science, is should be empirical, in a sense, and a man does not have any access to his nature, nor to his god, his unconscience, his fate, the metaphysical and all that, why? Because we practically made those things up! In some part of history, there wasn't such a notion, and then - there was, you might as well say that Evolution had a sociological and cultural effect on the so-called Nature of men?!
Prove evolution had nothing to with cigarettes and that cigarettes have nothing to do with evolution.
Where would seek the connection in hopes of not finding any? Within your Mindset or Wikipedia?
This may seem priggish, but it is quite important when we speak of Buddhist's suffering. I believe that in the Eightfold's view, the suffering is the attitude toward reality, surrounding, the happening, however you want to call it.
Suffering of a broken arm is the will to stop pain. Pain in it self is not harmful. And more important - pain doesn't automatically produce suffering, it is the sufferer and his will to go back, to a time which he didn't feel that pain, or toward a time the pain will be no longer. Pain itself is enjoyable, look at BDSM, hard scratching, biting your girlfriend's neck, etc. It is a great experience, wait till you break an arm, lie down, forget about your language, and concentrate in the pain, forget it's p a i n, try to address the thing that the word is pointing at, research the differences of this pain and any other you remember, etc.
Loneliness is not automatically translated as suffering, many people enjoy solitude, they may even say that the state of loneliness is a nature.
I've already mentioned BDSM, enslavement goes the same direction, some people are glad to be enslaved, look at white and blue collar.
I think we should do something about some sort of a protocol, "How to ask a question of dummies", I mean, wouldn't "Would you clone yourself?" or "Your newborn son?", "Would you buy a bunker in alaska to keep all your relative's insurence-clones?", you know - or even "What's the worst thing that can happen?"
The day I saw a friend of mine sitting down on his computer, showing me the new Call for Duty, after five sequential nights he spent in Gaza, killing a sum of eight people he never met before, right there - I just KNEW something got terribly wrong with this story.
Of course, he has the "He wouldn't hesitate shooting me" argument by his side, plus the "They are enemies" supporting from behind, but I say that if you want to stay alive, you do not cross the line.
You do not hold a loaded gun.
You do not invade a man's home for his neighbor's actions.
Obviously, sanity is a social construct - as in - the divider of sane people from the lunatics is created socially and is dependent on statistical opinion and the consensuses of what is real and\or possible. We all have these, one needs only a few days in front of the tv to absorb all of it.
Sanity was constructed in order to put it in a social contract. Since we know the insane are sent away to pure themselves, or just stay away - It is plausible to assume that if you are free to hang around, go to work, and pay your taxes, your mental state and conditioning are most probably acceptable by the people around you. Thus, you are sane.
I'll leave the paranoid thoughts of a self-conscience pseudo-existentially questioning the identity of itself, to those who blindly believe that human broken-by-definition language could possibly reach its improvised rusted phone-lines to a matter we all daily rediscover that we have no stable idea about the nature of, that we will probably never understand how we work.
Only those who believe in an object or an abstract thingy just because there is a word for it could possibly give any meaning to sanity outside of the context of social acceptance.
We try to desperately defy ourselves, to get rid of the mystery, the unknown, the uncertain, to function as a rational, calm, peaceful, human beings. Yet we are surrounded by words like I, myself, self, soul, conscience, concentration, sanity, attention, existence, inner world, thoughts, etc.. What does each point at?
I wouldn't say it's "acceptable", but I wouldn't go the other way either.
Because the problem pops up only when it is a matter of policy of masses. The big no-no of drug prohibition is a simple: "What if everyone start using?" or "What would you say if your son does it?"
Though it is very clear that the majority of illegal drug users are there for the thrill, I wouldn't start categorizing, but most of marijuana smokers wouldn't have smoked at all if it wasn't illegal, because it wouldn't be on the tv, radio, newspapers etc.. There just wouldn't be a buzz around it.
The real question is: Whether one may lock another behind the bars for something that he digested, used, smoked etc.. And to spice things up, one, more likely, will have some a priori quotes of facts he had learnt by heart, while the other one knows that if there is any brain damage related to drugs - it is in the non-user experience.
Correct me if I'm wrong.
A patient may receive a treatment that might harm a system in his body in order to save another system. It is the PATIENT'S responsibility, after the doctor's approval, to decide whether it pays, should he take that risk.
I've heard of treatments that are illegal in the US, so patients that believe in it, travel all the way to chine, to a specific hospital to obtain it.
If it makes people feel better, if it makes some inspire themselves to become a better compound and companion in the psychological \ social \ physical environment, why stand between the man and his fruit?