Critique Against Human Nature

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

Arising_uk wrote:

I'm a touch lost as to whether you are supporting your definition of humanism or your anti-humanism?

I didn't support humanism from the beginning of the thread. I only attempted a definition toward it, premised upon Responsibility for Oneself.

Arising_uk wrote:

But do you mean that women cannot be responsible for themselves?

Women can become responsible for themselves, but it is different than Man's responsibility to Himself and his Dreaming.

And it is different than a child's lack of responsibility. Women are in the middle ground; women want to become like men.

Because women Envy Man's Free Will. Women want Free Will, but do not want its absolutely necessitated Self-Responsibility.

Women want to eat their chocolate cake without the calories....

Arising_uk wrote:

What does your idea make of the proud Nazi mother or female camp guards?

They were merely women, of course, doing as they are told. Women look up to male's Authority.

Women cannot function without male Authority, the highest male Authority counting as "God" or "Allah".

Arising_uk wrote:

Were they evil?

Nobody is truly evil (or good) in My eyes. Good and Evil both presuppose personal accountability and Self-Responsibility. The only people who can attempt to become Good or Evil are Self-Responsible men, men with moral conscience, honor, and integrity. Therefore, Good and Evil are mere states of Becoming.

But people like you, Englishmen, believe Nazis were evil, yes. Most people (80%?) believe Nazis are 'Evil'. They don't know why or how they were evil, except that this is what they've become educated to believe in.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

chaz wyman wrote:

So, have you given up the claim that a man can engage in a metamorphosis and change himself into a woman?

First he has to truly want it. And I have never met any men who truly want such a thing.

Even transsexuals who claim to want to become females/women, are lying in some degree. They lie to themselves, that, they are in fact men. Transsexuals want to become women because, they were taught that men are 'Evil', and hate themselves for this. What happens when you convince children that being male, and Becoming Man are evil??? They begin to hate themselves. This is how Transsexuality is brought about, along with other sexual perversions.

If you teach young males (children) to hate themselves, and that they are Evil, then the result is a self-fulfilling prophesy. They Become this evil; they become such an Evil as tainted within their Dreaming.

Now, I already have indicated this maybe true, and men maybe 'Evil' by how people are educated, and believe on a routine basis.

Either way, it doesn't matter. What Good and Evil reflect in this sense is a Moral Becoming.

Males become transsexuals because they view 'females' or 'women' as having Power, and want to become Powerful through a Metamorphosis that way. I'm not denying that it may become true, as you contend. But you are too short-sighted and stupid to see it, Cheeze. And you routinely miss the point.

That's why Cheeeeeeze is a stump brained, worthless forum troll.

You have not yet admitted to your own premise as: truly wanting to become...something else.

If you had admitted this, and become honest with yourself, then I would not need to Negate you now.

So the exposition here rests upon the "Transsexual", who hates himself (because he is educated that men/males are Evil/hateful/ugly/disgusting), and wants to become 'womanly', because he feels this will offer him new Power. What the Transsexual does not realize already, the ultimate power (of Free Will) that already innately exists in Man. And so he is delusional because of some lie he has heard whispered, and incurred into his own Autonomy.

In other words, Transsexuals are hedonistic perverts. And they become Evil, by their own acceptance of Indoctrination, and psychological damage/abuse. Transsexuals exist, because men are taught that men are Evil. And young male children believe this, and later become sexual perverts, rather than "real men" who are powerful and strong within their own volition. It all comes down to Pride, and sex.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

So, have you given up the claim that a man can engage in a metamorphosis and change himself into a woman?

First he has to truly want it. And I have never met any men who truly want such a thing.

You are trying to pretend that no man ever really wants a thing that is impossible.
This means that no man can really become anything he wants because he does not really want it.
Do you take me for a fool?
I'm too old and too wise to be taken in by such a crass and unconvincingly pathetic argument.
What a lightweight!

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

lancek4 wrote:

Ok Ikezil, but you have not addresses the 'dream'. If we are to begin communicating, be able to constructivly argue, I have one question right now: what constitutes the dream?

Imagining constitutes the Dream-State.

A brain/mind, and cognitive system of perception is required to Dream.

lancek4 wrote:

If the dream stays the same in that it changes,

This is a contradiction of terms: "dream stays the same in changing".

lancek4 wrote:

that change is the nature of the dream, what are the elements of the dream which apply, then, to the positional actuality?

The position and 'actuality' relate more to the subject itself than the Dream.

The Dreaming is the extension of the subject.

lancek4 wrote:

That is, if I am responsible to the dream, and take it as positional, so the actual is then that which 'changes', what is the basic 'theme' of this relationship?

The relationship is that Actuality and Change are not mutually inclusive. One is a primary presupposition to the Other.

The task is to predetermine what one is primary.

lancek4 wrote:

What is the Subject, the "I" in the proposal, positing in order that my respoonsibility remains viable?

Consistency, and a merger with what constitutes Dreaming apart from what constitutes the Actual.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

chaz wyman wrote:

You are trying to pretend that no man ever really wants a thing that is impossible.

It's not impossible except to your puny, stump brain, Cheeeeeze.

You are the creator of Impossibility. You believe in Impossibility, not I. I am beyond Impossibility.

chaz wyman wrote:

This means that no man can really become anything he wants because he does not really want it.

That's partially correct. It depends upon the particular Dream.

chaz wyman wrote:

Do you take me for a fool?

It should become obvious, Eastern Turban wearing Terrorist.

chaz wyman wrote:

I'm too old and too wise to be taken in by such a crass and unconvincingly pathetic argument.
What a lightweight!

We'll see, won't We.

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

Ikezall wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

Ok Ikezil, but you have not addresses the 'dream'. If we are to begin communicating, be able to constructivly argue, I have one question right now: what constitutes the dream?

Imagining constitutes the Dream-State.

A brain/mind, and cognitive system of perception is required to Dream.

lancek4 wrote:

If the dream stays the same in that it changes,

This is a contradiction of terms: "dream stays the same in changing".

lancek4 wrote:

that change is the nature of the dream, what are the elements of the dream which apply, then, to the positional actuality?

The position and 'actuality' relate more to the subject itself than the Dream.

The Dreaming is the extension of the subject.

lancek4 wrote:

That is, if I am responsible to the dream, and take it as positional, so the actual is then that which 'changes', what is the basic 'theme' of this relationship?

The relationship is that Actuality and Change are not mutually inclusive. One is a primary presupposition to the Other.

The task is to predetermine what one is primary.

lancek4 wrote:

What is the Subject, the "I" in the proposal, positing in order that my respoonsibility remains viable?

Consistency, and a merger with what constitutes Dreaming apart from what constitutes the Actual.

It seems we might be beginning to communicate, but one or two problems remain: 1) your definitions lack and/ or 2) you are speaking in too general of terms; again, can you give a concrete or an analogy
As an exanmple. What is 'the dream'. ?

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

lancek4 wrote:

It seems we might be beginning to communicate, but one or two problems remain: 1) your definitions lack and/ or 2) you are speaking in too general of terms; again, can you give a concrete or an analogy
As an exanmple. What is 'the dream'. ?

Let's simplify then...a dream is when you go to sleep at night, and during your Unconscious Endeavor, you "feel the sensation of flying", or "feel being chased by someone, or chasing someone", or "feel like you are drowning", etc. then we call these Unconscious Experiences as 'dreams'.

But they are not "real" because the Dreamer then "wakes up" from the Dream.

What actually happens is a mere shift in the Imagining, and the classification of sensual Experience.

The Dream-State actually is a mimicry of Universality and Consciousness. The human mind has become evolved enough to trap within itself (Eternal Recurrence), an "relived Experience", or even one never lived before. This offers humanity the existence of "Pure Possibility", or the rebellion of the Dream-State (Imagining) against any "real world" or "actual circumstances".

In this way, it become first possible for Man to control, and manipulate, His own environment to His own Free Willpower.

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

Ikezall wrote:

Lancek4 has revealed to me a great Truth through my Meditations:

Definition of: To Dream, "Recollection of Noumenal Prepositions as Experienced".

Thanks Lancek4..... I look forward to your next response.

Here is some troll food with which I am trolling:

Sorry, this still does not cut the mustard.
Is Man the individual recollecting spiritual type experiences ?
or is man the group?

noumen: a non-positional reality; (2)something that can only be known through the intellect; a thing in-itself.
Kant, who reintroduced the term would have not agreed. Yes, I admit I am not very well read, not very much a scholar - but I try to read what I can.
But I have given these definitions in that they have been given or implied in various circles. The point is that a noumen, if it is the (2)'object in-itself', as a sort of 'ideal form' then we cannot know of it. Yet, in that we posit that it may exist thus (1) it can only be known intellectually. If this is the case, that we can only 'suppose' of this noumen, then we have the analogy to an experience that 'should not be': a (3) spiritual experience.
(2)A noumenal thing is that which has been proposed to exist independantly of our knoweldge of it.
(and thus can't be known intellectually or otherwise).
And, in some arenas, (3) a noumenous experience is another term for a spiritual experience.
A phenomenon is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove its reality except with reference to the occurrence, such as 'wind sheer'.

A noumen is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove it at all, except with reference to the words we are using to indicate the noumen itself, such as 'holiness'.

It's not a version I recognise. Kant insisted that such a thing was a word to describe the unknowable reality that lies just beyond the limits of our senses.
We know it is there due to the phenomena but without a "god's-eye" view we cannot know it.
]the noumen and the phenomena in a type of polemic. There is the phenomenon that we know due to one quality, and there is the noumen that we know because of another quality.
The 'actual' or 'physical' world thus consists of phenomena; the 'metaphysical' of noumen -as a polemic in dialogue.[/quote]

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

You are trying to pretend that no man ever really wants a thing that is impossible.

It's not impossible except to your puny, stump brain, Cheeeeeze.

You are the creator of Impossibility. You believe in Impossibility, not I. I am beyond Impossibility.

chaz wyman wrote:

This means that no man can really become anything he wants because he does not really want it.

That's partially correct. It depends upon the particular Dream.

chaz wyman wrote:

Do you take me for a fool?

It should become obvious, Eastern Turban wearing Terrorist.

chaz wyman wrote:

I'm too old and too wise to be taken in by such a crass and unconvincingly pathetic argument.
What a lightweight!

We'll see, won't We.

You are just making a fool of yourself.

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

Quote:

Izekil: I meant preposition, before conscious awareness is in affect.

I think it would be better, then to use "pre-position", because preposition is already taken in our lexicon as meaning a word which modifies a mound by indicating location, such as "above", "below" etc...

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

lancek4 wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

has revealed to me a great Truth through my Meditations:

Here is some troll food with which I am trolling:

Sorry, this still does not cut the mustard.
Is Man the individual recollecting spiritual type experiences ?
or is man the group?

noumen: a non-positional reality; (2)something that can only be known through the intellect; a thing in-itself.
Kant, who reintroduced the term would have not agreed. Yes, I admit I am not very well read, not very much a scholar - but I try to read what I can.
But I have given these definitions in that they have been given or implied in various circles. The point is that a noumen, if it is the (2)'object in-itself', as a sort of 'ideal form' then we cannot know of it. Yet, in that we posit that it may exist thus (1) it can only be known intellectually. If this is the case, that we can only 'suppose' of this noumen, then we have the analogy to an experience that 'should not be': a (3) spiritual experience.
(2)A noumenal thing is that which has been proposed to exist independantly of our knoweldge of it.
(and thus can't be known intellectually or otherwise).
And, in some arenas, (3) a noumenous experience is another term for a spiritual experience.
A phenomenon is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove its reality except with reference to the occurrence, such as 'wind sheer'.

A noumen is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove it at all, except with reference to the words we are using to indicate the noumen itself, such as 'holiness'.

It's not a version I recognise. Kant insisted that such a thing was a word to describe the unknowable reality that lies just beyond the limits of our senses.
We know it is there due to the phenomena but without a "god's-eye" view we cannot know it.
]the noumen and the phenomena in a type of polemic. There is the phenomenon that we know due to one quality, and there is the noumen that we know because of another quality.
The 'actual' or 'physical' world thus consists of phenomena; the 'metaphysical' of noumen -as a polemic in dialogue.[/quote]

No problem.
Although Kant is probably most famous for the use of noumenon and phenomenon, there exist a range of Kantian interpretations; other uses of the terms and pre-kantian versions.
And when we are sparing with the author of this thread just about any old shit will make him happy - just os long as he REALLY WANTS to be happy.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

chaz wyman wrote:

You are just making a fool of yourself.

And you are reported for trolling, again.

Scum like you should be banned from philosophy forums, as you do not contribute to Discussion, Inquiry, or Critique, but rather focus all attention on yourself like a Narcissistic, vain child. You certainly have the immaturity of one.

Ikezall · **Joined:** Sat Sep 24, 2011 9:46 am **Posts:** 42

It'll be nice when the Terrorist here is banished back to the middle east where he belongs.

Then we can get on with some real philosophy here....

lancek4 · **Joined:** Sat Oct 16, 2010 5:50 pm **Posts:** 1565

Ikezall wrote:

lancek4 wrote:

Here is some troll food with which I am trolling:

Sorry, this still does not cut the mustard.
Is Man the individual recollecting spiritual type experiences ?
or is man the group?

I already gave you my definition of Man. Reread the OP.

Ok: man is pure potential. And your elaboration of this idea does nothing to tell me what 'man' is compared to anything else I might propose. The sky is pure potential also. So is peanut butter. What differentiates 'man' from any other thing with pure postential?

You tell me about "individual recollecting spiritual type experiences"....

lancek4 wrote:

noumen: a non-positional reality; something that can only be known through the intellect; a thing in-itself. A noumenal thing is that which has been proposed to exist independantly of our knoweldge of it. And, in some arenas, a noumenous experience is another term for a spiritual experience.

I don't see how "noumen" = "non-positional reality". What makes you say this?
if a noumen is something that exists independantly of knowledge, then it does not exist in reality in position. It either exists as 'all reality' or 'no reality'. How can we know of something we cannot know of?
when we posit a specific numen, then we are dealing strickly with the individual and its knowledge.

What is true is that noumena is "beyond knowledge" and is therefore, Onto-epistemological.

Being-concerning knowledge ? ok, I can see that. but the probelm is that you contradict yourself by positing such a thing that is beyond knowledge. What is knowledge?

lancek4 wrote:

A phenomenon is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove its reality except with reference to the occurrence, such as 'wind sheer'.

A noumen is an occurrence that we apprehend as real but cannot prove it at all, except with reference to the words we are using to indicate the noumen itself, such as 'holiness'.

preposition? did you mean proposition, or do you mean a term which is used to show relation in a sentence? I will assume the former.

I meant preposition, before conscious awareness is in affect. "pre-position" is better.

chaz wyman · **Joined:** Fri Mar 12, 2010 7:31 pm **Posts:** 10592

Ikezall wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

You are just making a fool of yourself.

And you are reported for trolling, again.

Scum like you should be banned from philosophy forums, as you do not contribute to Discussion, Inquiry, or Critique, but rather focus all attention on yourself like a Narcissistic, vain child. You certainly have the immaturity of one.

You are cracking me up!!

Philosophy Now Forum

Critique Against Human Nature

Who is online