Faux Philosophers

[Rageaholic]

I'm all for asking questions. Why do we do things a certain way? Is this law just? What is the meaning of life? If we don't question things, we end up in a corrupt system. But there comes a time when you just need to accept things as common knowledge. Example, suffering is bad. I think we should all agree that suffering fucking sucks and that no one should have to suffer.

Some people however, have to appear all intellegent by questioning things that should be obvious to all.

Murder is wrong.
Why?
Because it causes suffering.
Why is suffering bad?
Because it's an unpleasent experience.
How is it unpleasent?


Look idiot, it doesn't make you look smarter than the average bear by wondering why suffering is bad. In fact, it makes you look WILLFULLY STUPID by questioning something so obvious. Either that, or sociopathic. If we can't agree on some basic things, than there is no basis to judge what is or isn't acceptable. We're just making ourselves more ignorant by ignoring the obvious. Ironically, the two people who play this game are moral reletivists (there are no moral absolutes) or some religious nuts who think that their God is the only basis of morality. Just goes to show you that stupidity is rampant on both extremes.

[Hyena Dandy]

Once you get to 'Why is suffering unpleasant' you know you're dealing with a trollosopher instead if someone actually interested in talking things out.

[HYHYBT]

Of course suffering is unpleasant. That's definitional.

But suffering isn't always bad in all senses. Or, at least, it's necessary at some level for proper development.

[linguist]

Of course suffering is unpleasant. That's definitional.

But suffering isn't always bad in all senses. Or, at least, it's necessary at some level for proper development.

exactly. all the suffering i've experienced in my life has sucked, but i wouldn't trade one second of it, because without it i wouldn't where i am and who i am today.

also, from a purely philosophical standpoint, since suffering and joy are opposite sides of the same coin, could we really know joy without suffering?

[Hyena Dandy]

Oh, yes, those are good questions.

But "Why is suffering unpleasant" is not.

[jackfaire]

But "Why is suffering unpleasant" is not.

Oh? But this one is just begging for an answer. Tell them you can show them why Suffering is unpleasant and then make them suffer.

[DrFaroohk]

This reminds me of an SNL sketch where these people go to visit John Lennon's grave, and his ghost comes out, and everything he says is just trying to flip around what they said. Same when they visit Garcia.

[Silverharp]

Oh yeah, the "I took a semester of Intro to Philosphy and am now an expert on the human nature" crowd.

[DrFaroohk]

I love the circular thinking. I get that way about some material in schools. Like why do we read catcher in the rye? Cuz it's a classic. Why is it a classic? Cuz they make you read it in high school! If they'd started passing out copies of The Hobbit in school to every freshman class than that'd be the book serial killers would be hoarding.

[the_std]

Just to preface this next bit, I hated Catcher in the Rye. I read it once to see why it's a classic, and found it severely lacking. However...

Catcher in the Rye is not a classic because it's handed out in high school. It is handed out in high school because the themes it covers generally resonate with teenagers/young adults because they are things they're dealing with in their every day life. It explores blooming sexuality, identity/finding oneself, and feelings of alienation. That explains nearly every teenager in the world, and hence might make reading more attractive to people in high school.

It is a classic because it is so widely appealing, and tackled the subjects in a new and very accessible way. It changed the way people thought about the age group Holden Caulfield, and still changes the way people think even now, sixty-one years later. That lasting revolution in perception is what makes it a classic.

I know what you meant to say, DrF, the circular "it's popular because people devour it and people devour it because it's popular" idea. However, I find that there are very few working examples of this idea. There are usually additional explanations to the things that are popular, not just "I like it cause other people like it". We like to use that argument to simplify things that we do not enjoy, because if we don't like it, the people who do are obviously just simple-minded sheep who like the things we don't like simply because they are sheep. Lord knows I've done this in the past, but I can now see how flawed it is.

[jackfaire]

Just to preface this next bit, I hated Catcher in the Rye. I read it once to see why it's a classic, and found it severely lacking. However...

Amusingly this book wasn't relevant to me until I turned 30.

[crashhelmet]

Suffering is unpleasant because we make it unpleasant. We choose to suffer.

Gene Roddenberry, or whoever's idea the Vulcan philosophy was, was right on the money. Emotions can be ruled with simple logic if you allow yourself to.

"There's no use crying over spilled milk"

We all know that saying, right? Why is is true? because crying over the milk is not going to undo what was done.

Crying or being heartbroken over some asshole/bitch that cheated on you is not going to undo what they did. Be happy they're out of your life.

Mourning a loved one is not going to bring them back from the dead. Celebrate the time you had with them.


Another one...
"Worrying does not empty tomorrow of its troubles. It empties today of its strength"

Do your best to prepare and then tell yourself you've done all that you can.

Afraid you'll fail a test? Study
Have a recital/game? Practice
Interview/Audition? Rehearse

Time spent worrying is time wasted that could be used preparing.

Just my thoughts on it all anyway...

and oh...
Murder is bad because it's "uncivilized"

[Rageaholic]

Now let me give an example of exactly what I mean. There was this youtube fundie by the name of venomfangx. He responded to the question of why God didn't prevent the holocaust by saying "how was the holocaust bad?".

He's said some other equally offensive things, but this stuck out because he was trying to sound all philosophical and wise, as if he was above logic and reason. Instead he came across as a sociopathic monster. I've heard similar stuff from other ideological nutcases. Sometimes they'll go as far as to claim that we are "too emotional" if we object to the suffering of others in the name of some "greater good".

I actually find the religious sociopaths the scariest because they'll claim a moral high ground, but will come across as so machiavellian that their morals are meaningless.

[DrFaroohk]

The logic thing is all good and well, but it doesn't really work that well for everyone.

I'll probably get flamed, but I compare mental and physical disabilities here.


My stepmom - she can shrug off anything. Just one of those people. Got knocked up at 17, married as asshole husband, kid wound up being physically handicapped, and one after another life keeps throwing her these nasty curveballs, and she just shrugs it off and goes about her day.

That's great. She can do that. Her brain works that way. When she gets stressed out, her brain releases chemicals and neurons fire and it gets her through it.

My real mom? Opposite. Things don't go her way and she falls apart. Why? It's not that she doesn't want to, any more than a guy with MS doesn't want to walk. Her brain simply does not function that way.

That's why we need drugs! Legal or illegal, some people need a little extra boost to keep their head straight.

[bara]

Here is a good philosophizer question which Im working on:

Where did fish get a taste for worms?

Im still working on that one. Ill figure it out some day.