The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:36 am

Firstly I want to state that I was one of the first Super Sane philosophers. But now super sanity is starting to emerge as a cultural phenomenon, people are getting fed up with this sorry joke of a world.

I want to link this article to David Benetar, a super sane philosopher who sees things as clearly as I do, and that bringing children into this world is one of the highest crimes, a crime that makes murder pale in comparison.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-born

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4952
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:18 am

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:36 am
Firstly I want to state that I was one of the first Super Sane philosophers. But now super sanity is starting to emerge as a cultural phenomenon, people are getting fed up with this sorry joke of a world.

I want to link this article to David Benetar, a super sane philosopher who sees things as clearly as I do, and that bringing children into this world is one of the highest crimes, a crime that makes murder pale in comparison.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-born
Is that how you view yourself...as a joke? If this world is that funny, it would be a crime not to bring children into it.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Plato's Rock » Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:29 am

Old news, take The Last Messiah ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Messiah ) mindset elsewhere is my opinion.

EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon » Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:51 am

Hmmm....

That essay does look good. I've focused on authors like Aeneas the Tactician, who talked about the development of the concept of a "fire guard" while a defensive force held out during a siege, because many times a soldier would awake in a panic, hearing some sound, and think it was the enemy, and this would cause a chain effect of men at arms jumping up thinking that the enemy was inside, and rush at one another, in the dark, killing each other. Come morning, a significant amount of the defensive force could discover they killed one another without ever coming into contact with the enemy. So what the remedy was, to put a guard up at night, away from the walls, who would keep watch over the sleeping men. If something happened, a soldier jumping up, he could inform him it wasn't a issue, go back to sleep. It was the first case in history I know of designed to contain a outbreak of hysteria. Still happens a lot, many die around the world being trampled to death on pedestrian bridges and in stadiums, due to a wave of hysteria breaking out. A wall of human flesh can flatten you quick, and nothing is sane or rational about a crowd. This author seems to of hit upon related aspects, some relate at least. Might be something more to it. Don't like the concept of a intentional dumbing down of society, but I can see how too much contradictory effort by clashing individuals can be seen as having a necessity of ceasing/stifling certain behaviors.

Hopefully it is public domain now so I don't have to pay a arm and a leg for it.

User avatar
GreatandWiseTrixie
Posts: 1547
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:51 pm

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by GreatandWiseTrixie » Thu Nov 30, 2017 7:22 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 1:18 am
GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:
Wed Nov 29, 2017 7:36 am
Firstly I want to state that I was one of the first Super Sane philosophers. But now super sanity is starting to emerge as a cultural phenomenon, people are getting fed up with this sorry joke of a world.

I want to link this article to David Benetar, a super sane philosopher who sees things as clearly as I do, and that bringing children into this world is one of the highest crimes, a crime that makes murder pale in comparison.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-born
Is that how you view yourself...as a joke? If this world is that funny, it would be a crime not to bring children into it.
I never said i was a joke, said i was the joker.
The kind of joke i was referring to, was the dilapidated garbage joke, like spongebob.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Plato's Rock » Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:27 am

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:51 am
Hmmm....
....

Hopefully it is public domain now so I don't have to pay a arm and a leg for it.
You actually can find it in the Philosophy Now archives by clicking on the "External Links" button on the Wikipedia entry. If you haven't found it already. It's where I read it, and I think how I found this site in the first place years ago.

I just finished reading it all the way, and I think it applies in several situations. I know I probably use some of the mechanisms illustrated myself, but my thoughts were and are;

1) Being that this is Trixie's thread, it may be something that he/she(?) is going through. They can't find an anchor to tie their consciousness to. They are adrift on the sea of potentiality, and absurdity. They don't want to "distract themselves" except possibly through inanity/showcasing. Can't really isolate the emotions/awareness yet because it is so "raw". And overall as a result can't sublimate said emotions/awareness....yet

2) In a similar note, I may have hit a similar state that Trixie finds themselves presently in years ago (recall how I mentioned questioning too much in my introduction thread?). I found out about the "Last Messiah" then, and have used some of said concepts as a way to anchor myself. Except instead of trying to swim away from the pain...I decided to dive into it. Mainly because of my philosophical exposure prior to said event, and because I couldn't distract myself (social ostracized/isolation at the time) which seems similar to Trixie's situation, but of a different note/character.

Personally, I dug into nihilism with the intents to destroy it...that became my anchor. The absurdity of Nothing Itself. The meaning is self-contradictory as far as I know, and even if it destroys all meaning prior to that realization. One can still visualize themselves in a plain of "Emptiness", kinda like the Protagonist from "The Lego Movie"...he's so dumb, and unaware of being a "master builder" that his "mind is clear". That is what I think Trixie is doing, clearing out the junk, but is having a hard time realizing that there are some constraints (like the body issue/image).

Constraints are fun, and necessary. They give definition to the shape we are trying to form. Running with the "Lego" imagery, the constraints are like the block choices we have. They are defined by production, and out of our control for the most part, but the "infinite" potential is still there. How many possible builds are there with one lego kit? Add a few more Lego, and the possibilities get bigger.

Trixie Note: That is what I think EchoeOfTheHorizon, may be trying to convey...maybe...I'm not him. The idea that you have to accept yourself for who you are, and build from there.

Further Note: I consider myself somewhat in line with the idea of Morphological Freedom (a thought that I found in Transhumanist ideas) where they advocate for the notion that a person should be able to look/act however they please, and through "Science" we may be able to get "avatars" realistically. Who knows, but that is something to aim for...it's another "Anchor/Distraction". It'll only happen if people put forward the effort to making that "Reality" happen, and it won't happen by forcing people to change their minds (aka "You must see me this way...NOW!). They need evidence, and time. Just look at all the "ant-vaxxers, the Flat-earthers;...etc" They want proof, and some of them do turn over to the "rational side" (whatever that is)...you just can't push people because they push back (Fight or flight instinct).

...just some thoughts from a rock. And if you want one of the harshest realizations I've had, when it comes to suicide, there's only one person stopping you. Yourself, and you'll never know if you'll succeed. 1) You won't be there if you are. 2) Failure (highly likely if you're still aware), means you'll be crippled and hospitalized for awhile. And I've been around enough "suicide failures" in my clinic stays to say, "You don't want to go there." 3) And you won't be absolutely certain that you won't have a "hard reset". Meaning, you don't know if you'll reincarnate here, elsewhere, as what, or whom..., so you could end up in a worse situation than now. One you may realize you already had no choice in, so why not actually try not to make the best of it with what you do have? You know play the cards you've been dealt, but play them in your way. I mean would you want to repeat any of the horrors that you've already experienced up to now? That is a strong possibility of happening if you "Succeed"....a "Fresh start", from the bottom, and possibly from a worse off state.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4952
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:38 pm

Plato's Rock wrote:
Fri Dec 01, 2017 1:27 am
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
Thu Nov 30, 2017 6:51 am
Hmmm....
....

Hopefully it is public domain now so I don't have to pay a arm and a leg for it.
You actually can find it in the Philosophy Now archives by clicking on the "External Links" button on the Wikipedia entry. If you haven't found it already. It's where I read it, and I think how I found this site in the first place years ago.

I just finished reading it all the way, and I think it applies in several situations. I know I probably use some of the mechanisms illustrated myself, but my thoughts were and are;

1) Being that this is Trixie's thread, it may be something that he/she(?) is going through. They can't find an anchor to tie their consciousness to. They are adrift on the sea of potentiality, and absurdity. They don't want to "distract themselves" except possibly through inanity/showcasing. Can't really isolate the emotions/awareness yet because it is so "raw". And overall as a result can't sublimate said emotions/awareness....yet

2) In a similar note, I may have hit a similar state that Trixie finds themselves presently in years ago (recall how I mentioned questioning too much in my introduction thread?). I found out about the "Last Messiah" then, and have used some of said concepts as a way to anchor myself. Except instead of trying to swim away from the pain...I decided to dive into it. Mainly because of my philosophical exposure prior to said event, and because I couldn't distract myself (social ostracized/isolation at the time) which seems similar to Trixie's situation, but of a different note/character.

Personally, I dug into nihilism with the intents to destroy it...that became my anchor. The absurdity of Nothing Itself. The meaning is self-contradictory as far as I know, and even if it destroys all meaning prior to that realization. One can still visualize themselves in a plain of "Emptiness", kinda like the Protagonist from "The Lego Movie"...he's so dumb, and unaware of being a "master builder" that his "mind is clear". That is what I think Trixie is doing, clearing out the junk, but is having a hard time realizing that there are some constraints (like the body issue/image).

Constraints are fun, and necessary. They give definition to the shape we are trying to form. Running with the "Lego" imagery, the constraints are like the block choices we have. They are defined by production, and out of our control for the most part, but the "infinite" potential is still there. How many possible builds are there with one lego kit? Add a few more Lego, and the possibilities get bigger.

Trixie Note: That is what I think EchoeOfTheHorizon, may be trying to convey...maybe...I'm not him. The idea that you have to accept yourself for who you are, and build from there.

Further Note: I consider myself somewhat in line with the idea of Morphological Freedom (a thought that I found in Transhumanist ideas) where they advocate for the notion that a person should be able to look/act however they please, and through "Science" we may be able to get "avatars" realistically. Who knows, but that is something to aim for...it's another "Anchor/Distraction". It'll only happen if people put forward the effort to making that "Reality" happen, and it won't happen by forcing people to change their minds (aka "You must see me this way...NOW!). They need evidence, and time. Just look at all the "ant-vaxxers, the Flat-earthers;...etc" They want proof, and some of them do turn over to the "rational side" (whatever that is)...you just can't push people because they push back (Fight or flight instinct).

...just some thoughts from a rock. And if you want one of the harshest realizations I've had, when it comes to suicide, there's only one person stopping you. Yourself, and you'll never know if you'll succeed. 1) You won't be there if you are. 2) Failure (highly likely if you're still aware), means you'll be crippled and hospitalized for awhile. And I've been around enough "suicide failures" in my clinic stays to say, "You don't want to go there." 3) And you won't be absolutely certain that you won't have a "hard reset". Meaning, you don't know if you'll reincarnate here, elsewhere, as what, or whom..., so you could end up in a worse situation than now. One you may realize you already had no choice in, so why not actually try not to make the best of it with what you do have? You know play the cards you've been dealt, but play them in your way. I mean would you want to repeat any of the horrors that you've already experienced up to now? That is a strong possibility of happening if you "Succeed"....a "Fresh start", from the bottom, and possibly from a worse off state.
The only way to oppose nothingness/nihilism is through "being/virture" as their is nothing to oppose. Chaos is not a thing in itself but an absence of structure.

Plato's Rock
Posts: 61
Joined: Sat Nov 18, 2017 4:01 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Plato's Rock » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:36 pm

Not sure I entirely agree with your summation/thoughts there. If there is nothing to oppose, then there is no opposition. Being/Virtue are rendered useless/meaningless if not defined by or against something. Can there be Good without Evil (classic example). If there is no opposition, then why are people "like Hitler" considered Evil? Or what is Wisdom without ignorance? And there may be no "structure" in Chaos, but there are still patterns to be made (Chaos Theory).

It's this "chaos" that is the more fundamental aspect of life, call it the Unknown, the Strange, the Other...whatever, it just isn't in our cognitive envelope. It isn't ordered in our minds, but it doesn't mean there isn't order/structure, or a nature to Chaos.

Attempting to preempt some thoughts; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_space is there a vase there when there is no vase there? As in that little picture on the corner of the page?

If there is no, or never was Chaos/disorder...where does "free will come from"? To me it seems absurd to say that there is Freedom from Order, but maybe there is. And I just can't recognize it right now.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Viveka » Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:58 pm

Anti-natalism is for those who are afraid of children. If one raises a child the right way and the child has a good life with intelligence, artistic aptitude, musical appreciation, mathematical talent, and so on in their list of learned talents and they emanate a loving nature in that they have a good emotional life, an appreciation of life, and a strength of will for their dreams of what they want to be when they grow up along with a parent to help them realize their goals, then what's wrong with raising such a child? I myself have seen my nephews since they were babies, and helped them realize their happiest times and their talents. I taught my nephew multiplication at age 3. I taught my other nephew to become an artist as now he is nearly as talented as me when it comes to drawing and sketching, and I encouraged him to write fiction if he can come up with cool ideas. Whenever my nephew wanted to 'invent' new things he thought of, I would give him suggestions according to the chemistry and physics I knew, and taught him about atoms and how everything we know of is made of them. I used to have a poster of the periodic table, and at age 9 he could name all of the Latin names for the elements, and he is now taking Latin. Now when they're more grown up, I can see reflections of myself in them since I was there since they were babies, ever loving towards them.

OuterLimits
Posts: 238
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 11:54 pm

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by OuterLimits » Fri Dec 01, 2017 9:21 pm

Benatar has said he started these thoughts in infancy.

People tend not to believe these things if they are relatively happy and surrounded by people who are relatively happy.

Often, people would rather justify their depression than understand it.

In evolutionary terms, people tend to be selected who are well-adjusted to their environments. There will always be some people who are relatively unhappy and sometimes there are cures and sometimes they are unlucky, genetically or otherwise.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 936
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: The first in the series of Super Sane philosphers, including the Joker.

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:26 pm

I really don't think that anything like his or schopenhauer's brand of antinatalism will ever be that convincing, though. As others have noted, he bases his dis-value of life on his own personal experience and opinion. That's just not intuitively true to the vast majority of people. What the anti-natalist needs to do, is show how there's intrinsic disadvantages to existence vs non-existence. What would do this, is something like demonstrating how the pleasure we experience in our psychology is not actually beneficial outside of existence.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests