I meant you have studied Philosophy but not for yourself only, you want to apply it (in the world), you have outer goals, like everybody. The work you publish appears in the world and changes it, you have an idea of your goals. There I mean I can't tell you something because you are the expert since Philosophy is your profession. Outer goals are mostly different at each individual, whereas the inner goals are actually the same for each individual. The same is with me. I work and apply Chemistry, but Chemistry doesn't help when it comes to inner goals, here I can tell something (from myself so to say), but I cannot rely on my (a) profession.
Oh, I see... Although, there are people whose inner goals might be very different from you and me, non?
You, the trolling dwarf, will "out me"? With which arguments? Where are the bloody arguments? There's no "free will" and nobody is "free to wish" in Spinoza. If you wish "something" outside you, that's because "something" affects you (passion). Freedom only exists when you're able to affect yourself (action, auto-affection). Corollarium: Any man who is able to create will be able to understand that. If you think you "killed" Spinoza (without even understanding him) with that mess, you're dreaming with your eyes open. From a practical point of view, any MDL hacker understands Spinoza better than you. Ain't that a shame? No theory, no practice, no nothing? Only sarcasm, sadness, hate and so on? How regrettable can be the human existence on earth! Do you want me to go away? Is my presence here disturbing you? Let me guess... Maybe you're a MDL moderator and gave me an order? But wait... You spend a lot of time here, but you're not a moderator... Let me guess again... Maybe you just don't want to get exposed? Well, considering that (1) Yen wants to chat in peace and (2) you're beyond any hope, to get out of here is a pretty good idea. You can even reply with more and more (and more!) arguments ad hominem (after all, you can't do any better and I must understand that); I won't get back. Now I will please myself reading Schreber's memories... At least he knew how to write his deliriums in a meaningful way.
Oh, boy... OKI, since you asked for it... By definition, for anyone with any brains, since this is called a threat, arguments are not yet required, i.e. this means "arguments will follow unless you go away", Zweistein... Btw, since you have no brains and no self-awareness, I already outed you as a hypocrite! If you still don't know what this is all about: it's about going against Heidegger personally, without dealing with the arguments he put forward. Oh, and: this will be the day, when you outdo Heidegger, with this 'brain' of yours... What you fail to understand is that Spinoza insists on "freedom" emphatically but the very foundation of freedom is simply removed before there is any ground where this freedom can be expressed or tested. That is "my" argument, which you are insisting against by re-enforcing it. Bravo! Really, I feel sorry for such a "genius"... The only sad story here is this tirade without any argument to prove it. What we have seen above proves it beyond any reasonable doubt. Check who is first insisting on the problem of "freedom" in Spinoza, then you are "dismissing" it by re-enforcing it. What is that if not powerless trolling, which any child could see through? If only it were humorous one would laugh. As it stands, it's just extremely unintelligent... Well done! The question is: do you want to continue embarrassing yourself so freely and openly?!? It makes me think that some countries have way too much money, when they allow such twits to pose as philosophers - that's about it... Exposure to too much Sun - maybe. But as far as you are concerned - AHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!! Have you "considered" that I can chat with him in peace without a bro-ha-ha, as opposed to you? BSE is rampant in your neck of the woods, I see... Remember this, maybe: I am not even going to bother searching for all of those "promises"... Hehe, now I get ya - no wonder you write all this rhapsodic drivel, you're on drugs at all times... Oh, dear... Swiss cheese for brains... Ergo, you'll be back, babyyyy!!!
As I have recommended here that small Deleuze's book about Spinoza (he wrote another one, much more complex, which is called Spinoza et le problème de l'expression), I feel obligated to point out a significant error in the American translation. "Spinoza traces, step by step, the dreadful concatenation of sad passions; first, sadness itself, then hatred, aversion, mockery, fear, despair, morsus conscientiae, pity, indignation, envy, humility, repentance, self-abasement, shame, regret, anger, vengeance, cruelty... His analysis goes so far that even in hatred and security he is able to find that grain of sad*ness that suffices to make these the feelings of slaves." (DELEUZE, Gilles. Spinoza: Practical philosophy. Translated by Robert Hurley, City Light Books, 1988, p. 26.) "Spinoza suit pas à pas le terrible enchaînement des passions tristes: d'abord la tristesse elle-même, puis la haine, l'aversion, la moquerie, la crainte, le désespoir, le morsus conscientiae, la pitié, l'indignation, l'envie, l'humilité, le repentir, l'abjection, la honte, le regret, la colère, la vengeance, la cruauté... Son analyse va si loin que, jusque dans l'espoir, dans la sécurité il sait retrouver cette graine de tristesse qui suffit à en faire des sentiments d'esclaves." (DELEUZE, Gilles. Spinoza: Philosophie pratique. Ed. de minuit, 1981/2003, p. 39.) The error is marked in bold. Instead of "hatred", we must read "hope". ______________* * *______________ Well... (1) Hypocrisy is to give your most meticulous answer only when you know your interlocutor is leaving the debate and, simultaneously, to stress that he must fulfill his promise. It's a sordid trick, but I must confess that I was expecting this from you. What else could I expect? (2) On the contrary: by saying that "there isn't any ground where this freedom can be expressed or tested" you are re-enforcing what I have said: you don't understand Spinoza and, I would dare to say, you don't understand what freedom is. From the moment you don't understand the concept and, above all, you don't have the experience that corresponds to the concept, it's easy to say it is illusory. But this "refutation" is entirely verbal. Flatus vocis. Or, as Heidegger would say, loquacity. (3) How can you say I had the intention of "outdo" Heidegger? It's a plain lie. On the contrary, I have expressly said that the fact he was a nazi is not a refutation of his philosophy. And I only stressed that your beloved Heidegger was a bloody nazi because you tried to point a completely insane relationship between Spinoza and totalitarianism in the first place. Again, you accuse me of doing what you're doing. You are trying to "outdo" Spinoza. Here we can see how clear is the relationship between your omnipresent sarcasm and the way you see people. You sincerely think that the people who is reading (or will read) this thread would never notice you're lying and distorting your interlocutor's words all the time. In resume, you see and treat them as stupids, and you can't avoid that. From this I conclude you have not completed thirty years yet. (4) I would not say that the age of a person is a private subject (at least for a man), so I feel comfortable trying to guess your age in a public forum. But, the same way I'm not discussing your sexual orientation, you should not accuse me of being a drug addict. These are private matters. But, again, you're wrong. I'm not on drugs. Do I write like anyone who is on drugs? I don't think so. I enjoy some coffee though.
He is back. Sadly. Yayks... Just as an example of utter trolling bonkers "reasoning": I certainly do not hold Heidegger in any high esteem as a political actor. That does not preclude me from seeing what he brought into Philosophy, even though I may disagree with loads of it vehemently. But that's this fellow - and I repeat - this is all nuclear physics for him, ergo bye-bye, you OTT (overtly trolling twat)...
Of course I'm back. If you were only insulting me, I could leave. Any drunk in the streets could do that (to insult me) and I would say "You're drunk", and leave. But you keep writing non-sense statements as if they were the pure distillation of the highest philosophy. And this is fun. It's a confusing text (or maybe ambiguous on purpose), so I will interpret it in two ways. If you're suggesting I didn't say precisely that, you keep lying and distorting my words. Here is what I said: This is not an argument against his philosophy but, let's remember that, Heidegger was a nazi. (Despite his efforts, he never understood Nietzsche...) I even wrote it in italics to stress my view. On the other way, if you're suggesting this is a wrong statement, you're dreaming with your eyes open. It is an obvious statement. Only someone mentally retarded would throw in the garbage the valuable work of a man just because he has demented political convictions. You can throw Hitler's work in the garbage: not even because he was a stupid nazi, but because his work has no value at all. (You may read him for historical reasons though.) But you cannot do the same with Heidegger's work. This is not philosophy; it's just common sense. But why I wrote that? I wrote that only because in this post you accused Spinoza with these words: Here you're not only trying to "outdo" Spinoza. You're lying about him. I defy you to bring here any text of any serious author saying that the philosophy of Spinoza could ever possibly lead to any form of totalitarianism. As a matter of fact, it's quite the opposite. If you never read Spinoza, you should at least "google" him. The more you insult me, the more I laugh. No problem. It's fun. But how can you accuse Spinoza's philosophy of being something that leads to totalitarianism? You're only proving you don't know Spinoza's philosophy, Spinoza's life, the political situation in Holland in the seventeenth century and so on. Or you're proving you are capable of saying anything – including lies, forgeries, insults – just to try to "win" a debate. Tertium non datur. I do not even need to expose you. You are exposing yourself. You know what? Don't be so americano. There are no "winners" or "losers" in a philosophical debate. I have stressed that I'm not here to "win", that is to say, to be "recognized" by you (or anyone else) as a winner. You have some serious flaws of character, but you're not dumb. And you're young. You can keep studying in order to create yourself while you do something valuable in this world. Don't miss the opportunity to become a real man, and perhaps a philosopher. I know you will insult me again and I don't care, but I hope that at least you'll remember these words in the future.
Since you said it, YOU should do it, dontchafink? It ain't very difficult, for crying out loud... https://www.google.it/?gfe_rd=cr&ei...&gws_rd=ssl#q=spinoza freedom and determinism - for instance... So, go away!
I'm almost done. Again: And you reply with a Google search about freedom and determinism? "For instance?" So you suggest that this is only one among all the great arguments in your vast arsenal? Ok... I'll be waiting for them. Yes, Spinoza is deterministic. And freedom, in his philosophy, is self-determination. Now, really: are you insinuating that the philosophy of Spinoza leads to totalitarianism because it is deterministic? Let's put that on a syllogism. Every deterministic doctrine leads to totalitarianism. Spinoza's doctrine is deterministic. Hence, Spinoza's doctrine leads to totalitarianism. Well, we have a problem here. According to this syllogism, Einstein also leads to totalitarianism. I'm afraid I'll be unable to sleep tonight. I'm frozen with this horrifying idea: hordes of enraged disciples of Spinoza and Einstein ruling the world and imposing the most terrible totalitarian state that ever existed.
... i disapprove of telling a fellow member to go away.. really.. there should be no need, imo.. or of a fellow member doing that just because we happen to have a difference of opinion.. i have been told here that i am a fake.. well, maybe i am too.. as a philosopher, or as a sophist.. i do not mean to troll, you know, just when i look over my shoulder, in this thread, i think as serious, serious discussions go, we should have a little more patience with each other.. just my 2 cents.. just try to imagine to the patience that yen showed to us, i ask you.. regards from a fake..
You keep me accusing of doing precisely what you are doing. You are replying my reasonings with offenses. The rule I imposed myself to leave this thread is very clear. If you were just offending me, I would leave the thread (we're not supposed to feed a troll in a forum.) But you're not only offending, you're also lying while offending. Therefore, I cannot do anything but to stay here to expose your lies.
You two have been off topic a while now, want me to send the walrus above to give you both a good thrashing ?
sending an essentially peaceful two-ton walrus would require all the postage stamps ever printed in australia.. and i would feel very cramped by it..
You probably picked the wrong scientist. It is science itself that is deterministic, tacitly... Any process which can be described by laws of time is deterministic, per se. Actually he was very anti-deterministic (compared to Newton) when doing his GTR and STR...simply spoken to illustrate that anything is relative and relies on an absolute (speed of light) is anti-deterministic and even anti totalitarian. It is the speed of light our greatest dictator!!! Lol. What here is deterministic and totalitarian are two egos which don’t know that their nature is infinite and eternal (already), blindly acting to turn away their (ego) destruction. I won’t ‘come back’ to western Philosophers, they are ‘limited’. I am too old already, lol, (except to the ancient Phil.) Limited in that way that they never understood ‘the absolute’, Einstein did it even better and was a scientist. The issue is that the ‘absolute’ cannot be understood by cognitive processes such as thinking and reasoning. Einstein had abilities which he did not get by studying. To see the absolute as 'innate' is better than to make it relative and continuing to talk about the absolute. “And freedom, in his philosophy, is self-determination.” Means Spinoza’s freedom is self-determination. But that has nothing to do with freedom. If the Self is free already then its determination means to lose freedom. I cannot say much more to that, I also don’t want to become much involved into this dispute. As long as they appear, they might appear different yes... Actually the inner goal is realized already...and a false idea of oneself is responsible to have inner goals. And the individual then tries to realize them ‘outside’. It is the process of self-alienation Whereby there is actually no inner and outer goal. We could say the sense of life, or know thyself are the most inner goals, but these become appearance when determined, also. Like I know myself now:....I am this and that....and.... and....
hm. i am mostly unhindered by philosophy, never bothered with spinoza or heidegger, to tell you the truth.. but. but i can see flaws in logic, at my ripe old age... it goes something like this, for example; man is intelligent. woman is not man. woman is not intelligent. or like this; Every deterministic doctrine leads to totalitarianism. Spinoza's doctrine is deterministic. Hence, Spinoza's doctrine leads to totalitarianism. no harm in logic, imo.. hope i did not insult anyone..
May I reply? Yes, nodnar, both syllogisms are flawed. The second syllogism is flawed because (as I tried to point out) its first premise is flawed. The first syllogism (the one you wrote) is flawed because its second premise is flawed. That's why both conclusions are flawed. Yen, I think that Heisenberg would be for sure the "wrong scientist". Anyway, Einstein came to my mind not only because he was deterministic, but also because he loved Spinoza and Spinoza's philosophy. Do not send the walrus please, I'm leaving. Peace for all.
Yeah, Om mani padme hum is a complete Philosophy itself. Anagarika Govinda "Foundations of Tibetan Mysticism". It is nice that people here refer to different people (Philosophers). Well the thread title says.....mean to us...I don't want to appear to value one's post... The question is: How is life and the / its quality what I am doing / happiness.... -When I act with a feeling of incompleteness, being identified with things which are impermanent and are constantly changing.... -Or with deep unity, with the knowledge that that what I am is already what it is. All what 'I' reach and get and lose again does not affect myself...it affects ego but not myself. These here are also two essential differences. @rEApEAt Sure, Schrödinger also, but Einstein fits here also. Einstein's GTR and STR have more of 'spirituality' or anti-deterministic content as one might think.....'his' light does not follow the laws of time which are essential for deterministic processes.