Philosophy is useless

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

All the money wasted on an edumucation only to find out he's been primed to be a worker...a "specialist" in the machinery he considers self-evident.

Here, ladies and gentlemen, humans, we have a specimen. An example of modernity, a piece of genetic filth which most will associate themselves with.

A brain-washed automation, traiend to think in the "proper" ways so as to serve the system he can never think outside of.
An institutionalized manimal...a domesticated, feminized, herbivore.
Bred only to work and to consume and to be content a a slave.
A submissive, effete turd, pusher...regurgitating, repeating imitating, deferring, referring....proud of the institutional credentials it has been given, proving that it has thoroughly absorbed the indoctrination and is now ready to fulfill its masters wishes.

Here we have a duplicitous life hating, world denouncing weakling, happy to live in expectation fo a coming New World Order, a better Utopia, a Paradise to correct nature's viciousness and injustice.
Do you see him brag and puff out its breast?
I give you the emasculated male of the future.

Rejoice, greed and violence are a thing of the past.
AMod
Posts: 169
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 6:32 pm

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by AMod »

Outsider,
Outsider wrote:...
I've already had a conversation with Amod; he knows what he needs to know.
...
Have you, when was this?

AMod
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by reasonvemotion »

"The Herd Instinct. Freud.

WE cannot for long enjoy the illusion that we have solved the riddle of the group with this formula. It is impossible to escape the immediate and disturbing recollection that all we have really done has been to shift the question on to the riddle of hypnosis, about which so many points have yet to be cleared up. And now another objection shows us our further path.

It might be said that the intense emotional ties which we observe in groups are quite sufficient to explain one of their characteristics—the lack of independence and initiative in their members, the similarity in the reactions of all of them, their reduction, so to speak, to the level of group individuals. But if we look at it as a whole, a group shows us more than this. Some of its features—the weakness of intellectual ability, the lack of emotional restraint, the incapacity for moderation and delay, the inclination to exceed every limit in the expression of emotion and to work it off completely in the form of action—these and similar features, which we find so impressively described in Le Bon, show an unmistakable picture of a regression of mental activity to an earlier stage such as we are not surprised to find among savages or children. A regression of this sort is in particular an essential characteristic of common groups, while, as we have heard, in organized and artificial groups it can to a large extent be checked.

We thus have an impression of a state in which an individual’s separate emotion and personal intellectual act are too weak to come to anything by themselves and are absolutely obliged to wait till they are reinforced through being repeated in a similar way in the other members of the group. We are reminded of how many of these phenomena of dependence are part of the normal constitution of human society, of how little originality and personal courage are to be found in it, of how much every individual is ruled by those attitudes of the group mind which exhibit themselves in such forms as racial characteristics, class prejudices, public opinion, etc. The influence of suggestion becomes a greater riddle for us when we admit that it is not exercised only by the leader, but by every individual upon every other individual; and we must reproach ourselves with having unfairly emphasized the relation to the leader and with having kept the other factor of mutual suggestion too much in the background.

After this encouragement to modesty, we shall be inclined to listen to another voice, which promises us an explanation based upon simpler grounds. Such a one is to be found in Trotter’s thoughtful book upon the herd instinct, concerning which my only regret is that it does not entirely escape the antipathies that were set loose by the recent great war.

Trotter derives the mental phenomena that are described as occurring in groups from a herd instinct (‘gregariousness’), which is innate in human beings just as in other species of animals. Biologically this gregariousness is an analogy to multicellularity and as it were a continuation of it. From the standpoint of the libido theory it is a further manifestation of the inclination, which proceeds from the libido, and which is felt by all living beings of the same kind, to combine in more and more comprehensive units. 2 The individual feels ‘incomplete’ if he is alone. The dread shown by small children would seem already to be an expression of this herd instinct. Opposition to the herd is as good as separation from it, and is therefore anxiously avoided. But the herd turns away from anything that is new or unusual. The herd instinct would appear to be something primary, something ‘which cannot be split up’.

Trotter gives as the list of instincts which he considers as primary those of self-preservation, of nutrition, of sex, and of the herd. The last often comes into opposition with the others. The feelings of guilt and of duty are the peculiar possessions of a gregarious animal. Trotter also derives from the herd instinct the repressive forces which psycho-analysis has shown to exist in the ego, and from the same source accordingly the resistances which the physician comes up against in psycho-analytic treatment. Speech owes its importance to its aptitude for mutual understanding in the herd, and upon it the identification of the individuals with one another largely rests.

While Le Bon is principally concerned with typical transient group formations, and McDougall with stable associations, Trotter has chosen as the centre of his interest the most generalised form of assemblage in which man, that [Greek], passes his life, and he gives us its psychological basis. But Trotter is under no necessity of tracing back the herd instinct, for he characterizes it as primary and not further reducible. Boris Sidis’s attempt, to which he refers, at tracing the herd instinct back to suggestibility is fortunately superfluous as far as he is concerned; it is an explanation of a familiar and unsatisfactory type, and the converse proposition—that suggestibility is a derivative of the herd instinct—would seem to me to throw far more light on the subject.

But Trotter’s exposition, with even more justice than the others’, is open to the objection that it takes too little account of the leader’s part in a group, while we incline rather to the opposite judgement, that it is impossible to grasp the nature of a group if the leader is disregarded. The herd instinct leaves no room at all for the leader; he is merely thrown in along with the herd, almost by chance; it follows, too, that no path leads from this instinct to the need for a God; the herd is without a herdsman. But besides this Trotter’s exposition can be undermined psychologically; that is to say, it can be made at all events probable that the herd instinct is not irreducible, that it is not primary in the same sense as the instinct of self-preservation and the sexual instinct.

It is naturally no easy matter to trace the ontogenesis of the herd instinct. The dread which is shown by small children when they are left alone, and which Trotter claims as being already a manifestation of the instinct, nevertheless suggests more readily another interpretation. The dread relates to the child’s mother, and later to other familiar persons, and it is the expression of an unfulfilled desire, which the child does not yet know how to deal with in any way except by turning it into dread. 3 Nor is the child’s dread when it is alone pacified by the sight of any haphazard ‘member of the herd’, but on the contrary it is only brought into existence by the approach of a stranger of this sort. Then for a long time nothing in the nature of herd instinct or group feeling is to be observed in children. Something like it grows up first of all, in a nursery containing many children, out of the children’s relation to their parents, and it does so as a reaction to the initial envy with which the elder child receives the younger one. The elder child would certainly like to put its successor jealously aside, to keep it away from the parents, and to rob it of all its privileges; but in face of the fact that this child (like all that come later) is loved by the parents in just the same way, and in consequence of the impossibility of maintaining its hostile attitude without damaging itself, it is forced into identifying itself with the other children. So there grows up in the troop of children a communal or group feeling, which is then further developed at school. The first demand made by this reaction-formation is for justice, for equal treatment for all. We all know how loudly and implacably this claim is put forward at school. If one cannot be the favourite oneself, at all events nobody else shall be the favourite. This transformation—the replacing of jealousy by a group feeling in the nursery and classroom—might be considered improbable, if the same process could not later on be observed again in other circumstances. We have only to think of the troop of women and girls, all of them in love in an enthusiastically sentimental way, who crowd round a singer or pianist after his performance. It would certainly be easy for each of them to be jealous of the rest; but, in face of their numbers and the consequent impossibility of their reaching the aim of their love, they renounce it, and, instead of pulling out one another’s hair, they act as a united group, do homage to the hero of the occasion with their common actions, and would probably be glad to have a share of his flowing locks. Originally rivals, they have succeeded in identifying themselves with one another by means of a similar love, for the same object. When, as is usual, a situation in the field of the instincts is capable of various outcomes, we need not be surprised if the actual outcome is one which involves the possibility of a certain amount of satisfaction, while another, even though in itself more obvious, is passed over because the circumstances of life prevent its attaining this aim.

What appears later on in society in the shape of Gemeingeist, esprit de corps, ‘group spirit’, etc., does not belie its derivation from what was originally envy. No one must want to put himself forward, every one must be the same and have the same. Social justice means that we deny ourselves many things so that others may have to do without them as well, or, what is the same thing, may not be able to ask for them. This demand for equality is the root of social conscience and the sense of duty. It reveals itself unexpectedly in the syphilitic’s dread of infecting other people, which psycho-analysis has taught us to understand. The dread exhibited by these poor wretches corresponds to their violent struggles against the unconscious wish to spread their infection on to other people; for why should they alone be infected and cut off from so much? why not other people as well? And the same germ is to be found in the pretty anecdote of the judgement of Solomon. If one woman’s child is dead, the other shall not have a live one either. The bereaved woman is recognized by this wish.

Thus social feeling is based upon the reversal of what was first a hostile feeling into a positively-toned tie of the nature of an identification. So far as we have hitherto been able to follow the course of events, this reversal appears to be effected under the influence of a common tender tie with a person outside the group. We do not ourselves regard our analysis of identification as exhaustive, but it is enough for our present purpose that we should revert to this one feature—its demand that equalization shall be consistently carried through. We have already heard in the discussion of the two artificial groups, church and army, that their preliminary condition is that all their members should be loved in the same way by one person, the leader. Do not let us forget, however, that the demand for equality in a group applies only to its members and not to the leader. All the members must be equal to one another, but they all want to be ruled by one person. Many equals, who can identify themselves with one another, and a single person superior to them all—that is the situation that we find realised in groups which are capable of subsisting. Let us venture, then, to correct Trotter’s pronouncement that man is a herd animal and assert that he is rather a horde animal, an individual creature in a horde led by a chief."

https://www.bartleby.com/290/9.html





The Herd Instinct


Carl Jung
One might expect, perhaps, that a man full of genius could pasture in the greatness of his own thoughts, and renounce the cheap approbation of the crowd which he despises; yet he succumbs to the more powerful impulse of the herd instinct. His searching and his finding, his call, belong to the herd.

CARL JUNG, Psychology of the Unconscious
Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Outsider »

ForgedinHell wrote: Read Leo Strauss? LOL. Like that will be proof that the Jews control the US economy. First off all, dumbass, the vast majority of money in the US is not owned by the Jews, but by non-Jews. That's because the Jews are a minority.
Schmuck, that's why I said read Strauss. Its all about how the Minority gets to control and can control and do control the rest.
You can't count numbers, but can you read a book?


Second, the Jews neither control the executive, legislative or judicial branches of government, again, because they are a minority. So, right off the bat, you are going to have a tought time proving the Jews control the US economy.
A site like this is enough for you. Media control, crimes, etc. are all documented.
http://www.jewwatch.com/
First, you morons have to think things through. What evidence do you need to prove such a claim. Second, then you have to gather the evidence. You haven't thought things through, so now you look like prejudiced idiots. Prove your crap, or retract it.
This is so funny I can't even thank you enough. You are the Last person to be teaching Science or Scientific Method dufus!
You first Figure out for Yourself!!!!!! what the foundation of science is.
Or, how about the Jew named James Franco? How is he controlling the US economy? How about Stan Lee? How is he gaining from some conspiracy to fake a Holocaust? How did Jonas Salk control the US economy by curing Polio? How did Carl Sagan control the US economy for coming up with the Comos series and popularizing science? How about Jack Black, how is he taking over the world along with the rest of the Jews? Olivia Newton John, Gina Gershon, Simon and Garfunkle, etc., etc. What specific proof that any of these people are members in a Jewish cabal to control the world?
http://zeek.forward.com/articles/117374/

Get it?

You have different accounts set up under different "Ideals" and "Causes".

Now you start sniffing and follow the trails and see where it leads you If you care for True Scientific Facts. Schmuck.
Outsider
Posts: 74
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 1:37 pm

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Outsider »

AMod wrote:Outsider,
Outsider wrote:...
I've already had a conversation with Amod; he knows what he needs to know.
...
Have you, when was this?

AMod
As Aryan.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

Once more philosophy is proven to be useless by those who are useless themselves.

Place a retard in the 100 meter dash and give him a medal for finishing last.
What a useless practice...outside of the patting on the back and the delusion that all deserve to be wieners sic..
User avatar
SpheresOfBalance
Posts: 5688
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by SpheresOfBalance »

Satyr wrote:Brilliant..now perhaps a man of your standing, vast knowledge and credentials can offer a definition for the #1...so as to begin our exploration of the real.
One definition of the #1 will do....just one.
No philosophy or deferments or vague references to some hypothetical solution accepted.
One: being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:
ShitForBrains wrote:
Satyr wrote:Brilliant..now perhaps a man of your standing, vast knowledge and credentials can offer a definition for the #1...so as to begin our exploration of the real.
One definition of the #1 will do....just one.
No philosophy or deferments or vague references to some hypothetical solution accepted.
One: being or amounting to a single unit or individual or entire thing, item, or object rather than two or more; a single: one woman; one nation; one piece of cake.
What a simplistic, predictable, definition from a simpleton.
All you do here is replace the word "one" with "being", "individual", "unit", "item", "object"..."single", that one was the funniest one; it would be like offering the word Deity as a definition for the word God.

Turd, all the metaphors you used can be subdivided so is the #1 multiple ones?
How many ones are there and does not this contradict the notion of a one?
What is one, turd, or any of the substitute words you used?

The tragic part is that you were confident enough that the crap you offered was good that you posted it. That's how stupid you are.
You are so stupid you do not know and will never understand how stupid you are.
Does a cow know how simple she is?

See why you Shitforbrains do not belong here?


Now, this specimen of human decay represents the average mind.
Now I ask you: is this specimen capable of what we would consider sophisticated thought?
All it offers in a philosophy forum no less, are dictionary definitions and word-games....that and its piercing eyes and adeptness at obliterating with its fists concrete blocks.
Its stabbing gazes aside, is this philosophy? Is this creature capable of it?
Is it not one of many reasons why the mediocre who try to engage in thinking, pretentiously and superficially, fail to find a use for it?

I mean just read this specimen's definition for the #1. It thought it was clever; that nobody had thought of opening a thesaurus or giving the staple response.
This is what mankind has fallen to.
Why call him a turd? Is he Jewish?

Are you seriously having a hard time grasping unity in math? What aspect are you having difficulty with? Is it because it is the multiplicative identity 1 x a = a. Or, are you having difficulty even counting to one? Or, if you speak of the division of one into subparts, are you having problems dealing with resulting infinities? If so, maybe you can manage to crawl out of your ignorance by understanding that "matching" is even more fundamental in math than counting is. Or, are you just trying to play word games in the vain hope that someone will be impressed with the level of your actual ignorance? Your question is really childish, and I knew no matter the response, you would run off on a childish mission of obfuscation. If you really want to learn math though, pick up a first-grade text on the subject and go from there.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

So, I call the ****, coward, twice.
Around 0400 eastern time.

No answer.
Will try again tomorrow to set up a date and a time and a place for us to meet.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

So I calls this **** coward and all he says is "I got your number".

Let us play.
User avatar
Satyr
Posts: 647
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm
Location: The Edge
Contact:

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by Satyr »

Heard the voice of the **** today.
He was all whiny repeating over an over again "motherfucker" like a good homeboy American coward.

I can safely say that he's harmless.
Add him to the list of moron, coward, douche-bag, little boys with too much testosterone in their blood stream and too little brains in their skulls.

Have you heard a whiner on those teenage movie flicks?
That's him.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

Satyr wrote:Heard the voice of the **** today.
He was all whiny repeating over an over again "motherfucker" like a good homeboy American coward.

I can safely say that he's harmless.
Add him to the list of moron, coward, douche-bag, little boys with too much testosterone in their blood stream and too little brains in their skulls.

Have you heard a whiner on those teenage movie flicks?
That's him.
Costa Apostolakos, 514-331-8448, 9999 De L'acadie Boul, Montreal, QC H4N3M3, you really shouldn't lie. You do have a lisp. You mummbled the location where you claimed you would meet me, so there was no way anyone could understand what you were saying. The fact is you made a big mistake giving me your ID when you called me using your phone. But, I also will note, and I can forward on the e-mail threat you sent me, that even in writing, you failed to name a place to actually meet. LOL. You really think calling someone up, threatening them over the phone, as opposed to looking them in the eye, and being unable to pronounce the place where you claim you want to meet, because you are stammering so badly, makes you a bad ass? It doesn't. It makes you a criminal, and one who left even a paper trail by the internet threats you gave me, plus a clear way to find you. You really are stupid, even for an anti-semite.
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

Atthet wrote:You're the only "criminal" around here, ****. You've been threatening everybody, and expect sympathy. You will find however, in the end, that nobody has your back. Your paranoia and fear of anti-semitism has made you insane. Where you cannot find anti-semitism, and your vengeance against Hitler, instead you will create it anew. It's Jews like you who create the hatred, out of nothing, by accusing everybody who disagrees with you, of the "dreaded" anti-semitic label. Like the boy who cries wolf, soon nobody gives a shit if he's eaten by one.

Flop on your back some more, cry, and keep doing it until nobody is paying attention to you. It's unfortunate that you must smear the name of decent Jews out there. You are a liability. Think about it ****, do you actually believe Jews were only on the victim side of the Holohoax? Or, weren't there Jews working for Hitler as well? You are one sided, and simple minded, pathetic.
Nope. I threatened no one. Read the posts, numbnuts. What did I state? I stated that you anti-semites would be too cowardly to face me, look me in the eye, and talk crap. How is that a threat? It isn't. You can't find a single threat from me, dumbass. Satyr. What a punk. He stammered so badly I asked him three times to pronounce the location where he wanted to meet, and he still couldn't quit stammering. Aren't you Satyr though? Mr. Costa Apostolakes, 514-331-8448, 9999 De L'Acadie Boul, Montreal, QC H4N3M3?
User avatar
ForgedinHell
Posts: 762
Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:26 am
Location: Pueblo West, CO

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by ForgedinHell »

Atthet wrote:
ForgedinHell wrote:Nope. I threatened no one.
ForgedinHell wrote:It's actually the anti-semitic scum like you who are the cancer.
ForgedinHell wrote:Well then, I'm sure you won't mind me increasing the IQ average of anti-semitic scum by offing you?
You also had another response where you threatened to stab "anti-semites" through the eye. I can find that one too, faggot.
Sure, you have. Guess what, dumbass. If I ever made a statement, you need to look at it in context. You'll see no threat.

What you will find, however, is me being called everything from "fucking ****" to "Jew boy" and numerous threats being made against me. But, yes, in point of fact, I'm sure stabbing anti-semites in the eye would be quite a fun thing to do. Don't you think? Just think? We will then be able to spot the anti-semites by the eye-patches they'll be wearing. Or, maybe we can do like in the movie and cut swastikas in their foreheads? That would be fun too. Why not? This way we would be doing the anti-semite a favor. Because then, at least he would have something to really bitch about.
reasonvemotion
Posts: 1813
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 1:22 am

Re: Philosophy is useless

Post by reasonvemotion »

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.
Theory based on experience is statistical. Jung claims when dealing with man it creates only an average, which cancels out exceptions to the rule. Stats show facts as the "average" person and this can falsify results. Theories based on stats is the perfect example and this must be considered whenever there is theory put forth as a guide to self knowledge. It is not the universal that characterises the individual but the unique. Of course man has to be presented as a stat unit, so it can be generalised what is actually known about him, unfortunately this gives an abstract picture of man as average but in doing so all the individual traits have been removed and these are exactly the characteristics that are the most important for understanding man.

Scientific knowledge, as we know it, has world acceptance, but to understand the individual one must reject science.
Post Reply