Clothes what

this looks good, yes, but i dont like to be a walking ad
unless its for TL LP :D

You're not really deluding yourself by being optimistic any more than you are by being pessimistic. There's no true perspective to strive towards. Your worldview is basically a symptom of who you are. You're not reasoning towards it or anything.

This is the stupidest thread ever.

On August 30 2010 20:38 zulu_nation8 wrote: You're not really deluding yourself by being optimistic any more than you are by being pessimistic. There's no true perspective to strive towards. Your worldview is basically a symptom of who you are. You're not reasoning towards it or anything.

Not necessarily I know, but if you do believe in positive thinking and other new age crap then yes - this is the optimism that I am talking about. Many of the modern optimists, and especially the spiritualists, live in lalaland, believing that their thoughts affect the outside reality or other such absurdities, and yet it is better than nothing at all since it conveys ability, no matter how untrue, it becomes useful fictionalism. Optimism doesn't serve me - I would much rather expect the worst and be pleasantly surprised when a situation turns out well. The advantage of having such practices can be easily verified if you play high stakes poker as I did. If I tell myself that I'm going to win a hand because I'm a 95% favorite or so then I'm doing a disservice to myself and am only going to be upset when I lose 5% of the time. If I immediately tell myself "well, it's a probability that I'll lose, that's just how it is..." then I won't be bothered when I do, no matter how large a sum I might have won. Same can be obviously applied in every situation, example if I lose a big hand and I remind myself he can hit and run me at any time and there's nothing I can do about it other than try to play well while he's here, instead of telling myself "he is so fucking bad I'm definitely going to make it all back". One keeps you calm and rational, the other might make you want to have a room with a lot of fruits and baseball bats.

Your overall play is going to be much better when you don't focus and consciously seek positive results, but prepare with in mind that things are very likely to not go in your favor, and you don't need to be fortuitous, efforts are enough to satisfy - you have no care in the world about if you win or not. Thinking becomes much clearer when you don't have emotions in the way -- irrational emotions-- meaning emotions that come into existence from irrationality -- so often seen exhibited by poker players, e.g., anger arising from "I should've won that", "I deserved that", etc. While this is just common sense, how many do overcome that through cold passion? And how much do we struggle with it initially and how badly does it influence our play?

There's always a perspective to strive towards if you perceive it will serve you better. The human being is the most plastic thing on earth, and much of what we do and think is modifiable and/or rectifiable. There is no right or wrong perspective, there is only what serves us and may serve others as well.

Well your poker example doesn't really sound like pessimism. I would think pessimism would be like thinking you're gonna lose every time you're flipping or a favorite. What you describe seem to be just approaching poker rationally instead of emotionally, and not being results-oriented. Even from the little poker I've played compared to you I obv agree. But if what I describe is pessimism, I'm sure you can see how that's not a very good mindset to have if you wanna play your A game. Optimism in this case wouldn't really be thinking you're gonna win every flip either, although that wouldn't hurt. It would probably be a general mindset of looking at things from brighter perspective to keep your morale up. This mindset doesn't have to be irrational, but just certain stuff like encouragement, etc that helps when we're feeling down.

What I understand from the pessimism you talked about before is like Schopenhauer going apeshit and telling everyone everything in life sucks, especially our most natural desires, and that we can only find temporary solace in art or something, I think that's what he says. If you look at the western canon you will see everyone from Socrates down to Schopenhauer argue for in some way or another the moral (ascetic) life. They all think our bodies and our lives are something to fight against. It gets pretty tiresome. On the other hand there have been much more cheerful literary figures and artists. I would think someone like Emerson was probably happier and lived better than Schopenhauer. Nietszsche described thought as symptom. A sick person would probably hate life, a healthy one the opposite. Not saying you are either ofc. But that explanation makes a lot of sense to me.

I'll watch that existentialist movie if you go read essay 3 of Genealogy of Morals or the non aphorism parts of Twilight of the Idols, both are pretty short. They address specifically what we're talking about and ofc better than I can ever do.

On August 30 2010 06:32 byrnesam wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2010 05 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              30 2010 05      end_of_the_skype_highlighting:51 sawseech wrote: buy 20 affliction shirts and a trucker cap and ballitout I like the affliction designs, do i automatically become a douche if i get some?

u r not mortal being u r byrnesam da rules of mortals do not apply 2 u ballitout

On August 30 2010 12:29 thumbz555 wrote: Abercrombie.... dude... wow. Some epic fail you had there. I rock Express, dropped about $600 there in the last two months and got a lot of nice stuff. Express gear is fitted, so if you're in good shape buy it, if not, don't. Just my 2c

nah, they have some decent shit. I cant wear it anymore cause most of their shit has their big logo on it. Id only buy shit that didnt have their logo or a small one. I like their button up shirts also, they fit me well.

would probably buy


mmmmmm not so much

On August 30 2010 23:31 zulu_nation8 wrote: Well your poker example doesn't really sound like pessimism. I would think pessimism would be like thinking you're gonna lose every time you're flipping or a favorite. What you describe seem to be just approaching poker rationally instead of emotionally, and not being results-oriented. Even from the little poker I've played compared to you I obv agree. But if what I describe is pessimism, I'm sure you can see how that's not a very good mindset to have if you wanna play your A game. Optimism in this case wouldn't really be thinking you're gonna win every flip either, although that wouldn't hurt. It would probably be a general mindset of looking at things from brighter perspective to keep your morale up. This mindset doesn't have to be irrational, but just certain stuff like encouragement, etc that helps when we're feeling down. What I understand from the pessimism you talked about before is like Schopenhauer going apeshit and telling everyone everything in life sucks, especially our most natural desires, and that we can only find temporary solace in art or something, I think that's what he says. If you look at the western canon you will see everyone from Socrates down to Schopenhauer argue for in some way or another the moral (ascetic) life. They all think our bodies and our lives are something to fight against. It gets pretty tiresome. On the other hand there have been much more cheerful literary figures and artists. I would think someone like Emerson was probably happier and lived better than Schopenhauer. Nietszsche described thought as symptom. A sick person would probably hate life, a healthy one the opposite. Not saying you are either ofc. But that explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I'll watch that existentialist movie if you go read essay 3 of Genealogy of Morals or the non aphorism parts of Twilight of the Idols, both are pretty short. They address specifically what we're talking about and ofc better than I can ever do.

For me it's about approaching things negatively, rather than expecting the absolute worst case scenario to occur every time. My more extreme pessimism is towards people and the general human condition rather than about events in my life, which I see as a hindrance and something to overcome. Obviously I have to disagree with you about having a mindset that forces a "brighter perspective" if that means having any unrealistic positive expectations (winning every flips? come on), because it leads to disappointments and is in my opinion a disservice and poor judgment. In practicality, cold passion resulting in equanimity is going to be the ideal condition for any poker player to be in, and in my opinion any human being as well, since he is undisturbed by outside factors and his happiness depends on himself only, and being perfectly non-results oriented would mean being in this condition. You seem to disagree, and I might be wrong but you seem to be of this opinion only because it gives the impression of the emotionless person who can no longer enjoy life, which is far from being the case and there is a whole lot I could say on that.

I'm of a similar opinion as Schopenhauer on many things including our natural desires. In fact, is not the point of Nietzsche's Ubermensch agreeing with this by saying that man is something that ought to be overcome? There is much more about Nietzsche that supports Stoic ideals than there is being dismissive, also. I have not read those texts and while N might have some interesting things to say about asceticism and Schopenhauer, it seems to me that it would be wrong to say that he holds a position anywhere near yours on the subject since he claimed that Schopenhauer was one of the few thinkers he respected, whereas you're expressing something wholly different. In that respect there is probably a better and more convincing argument out there against it. I will read those books in due time, I'm not a fan of half-studies. So far I have not been impressed with his idea of the Ubermensch, which as Cioran has put, is naive, and could only come to life from someone observing men from a distance rather than living with them, and if there has been anything close to it in reality it has been Marcus Aurelius. I am keeping my further studies of N for later, but thanks for the recs. Indeed, I can think of many more artists that most likely have had a much happier life than philosophers, which to me relates sensibly to this one Dostoevsky quote; "I swear to you gentlemen, that to be overly conscious is a sickness, a real, thorough sickness."

As for the film, if you have not had any such experiences of despair or you are not fond of existentialist literature I wouldn't bother watching, it's probably a chore to watch unless you are.

I don't associate being non-results oriented with being pessimistic. Like I said before I think they are different things. I actually associate being non results oriented with having a positive mindset. Not wanting to think positively because it might lead to disappointment is like saying I don't wanna take this edge in this spot because I might get coolered. Might be a bad analogy but I'm sure you take risks even though you may fail sometimes. Anyway I agree we should stop talking about life-views. They are a matter of differing experiences rather than thought/philosophy.

Responding to 2nd paragraph

- Overcoming does not mean overcoming desires, it means overcoming our present morality which N describes as Christian and life-denying. Another way to look at it is we should overcome Schopenhauer like N did. N basically held the opposite opinion as S regarding the will and desire when N diverged from S.

- I think N did admire the stoics in some ways. I will have to look again. But similar to his views on others, the relationship probably goes beyond pure admiration.

- N started moving away from Schopenhauer (S) very early in his writing career. The pessimism discussed in "The Birth of Tragedy" (his first book) already differs substantially from Schopenhauerian pessimism, which N later calls "pessimism of weakness" as opposed to the "pessimism of strength" expressed by Aeschylean and Sophoclean tragedies (Not Euripides).

To attempt to summarize TBoT very briefly; Greek tragedies allow the audience to reach beyond semblance (S concept) to experience primordial oneness (das ur-eine) through a combination of dionysiac (music)/apollonian (visuals) forces present in the art of tragedy. The result brings us closer to the horrifying truth of existence; that we are ephemeral shapes controlled by forces beyond good and evil, similar to the scenario of a child playing with sand on a beach. However the realization can also be life-enhancing. We become stronger and take on greater respect for life. N then contrasts this kind of life affirming pessimism, which is not S's life-denying kind, with scientific/socratic optimism: the attitude that rationality can conquer all, through which the power of myth and art are lost (bad).

By Human all too human (second book), N had started to distance himself explicitly from S and Wagner all the way until the end of N's career.

- My position on pessimism is part from experience part from N. I'm confident I did not misread N.

- The concept of Ubermensch itself honestly doesn't matter that much. It's basically a metaphor that embodies many recurrent N themes; importance of the agonal instinct, creating new values to replace old ones, etc. As to whether the concept is naive or not, that's not really discussable over the internet.

- That's a pretty cool and very appropriate quote. I do regard a kind of trained naivete as an admirable quality. Too much philosophy does make one sick.

- I don't hate existentialism I just hate Sartre and the dramatic stuff that comes with it. It's not a very big deal imo, we were born to create shit. Having an existential crisis is like having a walking crisis, like if one day i get really anxious about walking.

On August 31 2010 11:34 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On August 30 2010 23:31 zulu_nation8 wrote: Well your poker example doesn't really sound like pessimism. I would think pessimism would be like thinking you're gonna lose every time you're flipping or a favorite. What you describe seem to be just approaching poker rationally instead of emotionally, and not being results-oriented. Even from the little poker I've played compared to you I obv agree. But if what I describe is pessimism, I'm sure you can see how that's not a very good mindset to have if you wanna play your A game. Optimism in this case wouldn't really be thinking you're gonna win every flip either, although that wouldn't hurt. It would probably be a general mindset of looking at things from brighter perspective to keep your morale up. This mindset doesn't have to be irrational, but just certain stuff like encouragement, etc that helps when we're feeling down. What I understand from the pessimism you talked about before is like Schopenhauer going apeshit and telling everyone everything in life sucks, especially our most natural desires, and that we can only find temporary solace in art or something, I think that's what he says. If you look at the western canon you will see everyone from Socrates down to Schopenhauer argue for in some way or another the moral (ascetic) life. They all think our bodies and our lives are something to fight against. It gets pretty tiresome. On the other hand there have been much more cheerful literary figures and artists. I would think someone like Emerson was probably happier and lived better than Schopenhauer. Nietszsche described thought as symptom. A sick person would probably hate life, a healthy one the opposite. Not saying you are either ofc. But that explanation makes a lot of sense to me. I'll watch that existentialist movie if you go read essay 3 of Genealogy of Morals or the non aphorism parts of Twilight of the Idols, both are pretty short. They address specifically what we're talking about and ofc better than I can ever do. For me it's about approaching things negatively, rather than expecting the absolute worst case scenario to occur every time. My more extreme pessimism is towards people and the general human condition rather than about events in my life, which I see as a hindrance and something to overcome. Obviously I have to disagree with you about having a mindset that forces a "brighter perspective" if that means having any unrealistic positive expectations (winning every flips? come on), because it leads to disappointments and is in my opinion a disservice and poor judgment. In practicality, cold passion resulting in equanimity is going to be the ideal condition for any poker player to be in, and in my opinion any human being as well, since he is undisturbed by outside factors and his happiness depends on himself only, and being perfectly non-results oriented would mean being in this condition. You seem to disagree, and I might be wrong but you seem to be of this opinion only because it gives the impression of the emotionless person who can no longer enjoy life, which is far from being the case and there is a whole lot I could say on that. I'm of a similar opinion as Schopenhauer on many things including our natural desires. In fact, is not the point of Nietzsche's Ubermensch agreeing with this by saying that man is something that ought to be overcome? There is much more about Nietzsche that supports Stoic ideals than there is being dismissive, also. I have not read those texts and while N might have some interesting things to say about asceticism and Schopenhauer, it seems to me that it would be wrong to say that he holds a position anywhere near yours on the subject since he claimed that Schopenhauer was one of the few thinkers he respected, whereas you're expressing something wholly different. In that respect there is probably a better and more convincing argument out there against it. I will read those books in due time, I'm not a fan of half-studies. So far I have not been impressed with his idea of the Ubermensch, which as Cioran has put, is naive, and could only come to life from someone observing men from a distance rather than living with them, and if there has been anything close to it in reality it has been Marcus Aurelius. I am keeping my further studies of N for later, but thanks for the recs. Indeed, I can think of many more artists that most likely have had a much happier life than philosophers, which to me relates sensibly to this one Dostoevsky quote; "I swear to you gentlemen, that to be overly conscious is a sickness, a real, thorough sickness." As for the film, if you have not had any such experiences of despair or you are not fond of existentialist literature I wouldn't bother watching, it's probably a chore to watch unless you are.

i can attest to this. the only way for me to function is through the variable and imaginative use of the word fuck.

On August 31 2010 17:57 zulu_nation8 wrote: - The concept of Ubermensch itself honestly doesn't matter that much. It's basically a metaphor that embodies many recurrent N themes; importance of the agonal instinct, creating new values to replace old ones, etc..

this.

I think it's impossible to understand most of the book if you haven't read any previous N work. In fact that's probably the only reason that copies of the book where given as gifts to German soldiers during WWI

Loco, distance from others is indeed essential for N in order to have the flourishing of exceptional people (the bridge to the Übermensch---> humanity's new and life affirming goal, after the death of god). I don't see why this sort of distance is something that should be viewed as wrong by default,as I assume that you imply here

On August 31 2010 11:34 Loco wrote: So far I have not been impressed with his idea of the Ubermensch, which as Cioran has put, is naive, and could only come to life from someone observing men from a distance rather than living with them, and if there has been anything close to it in reality it has been Marcus Aurelius.

I'm also curious about why Cioran found the whole theme naive

@byrnesam: Yeah, for some reason the LP one looks like teh ghey. Maybe it's because of the similarity between the shape of the fish logo and the shape of a heart. The letters look like they're in pink and light blue, too. Jeez, might as well put a big picture of Antonius with a heart around it.

that probably comes with like 500 pages of reading in a translated text. I don't know if N would call them ubermensches or not but there have been many geniuses recognized by N throughout his work, Goethe, Napoleon, Dostoevsky, some roman dudes I forgot the name of, I think Horace was one, and then some more obvious ones, Beethoven, Homer, Caesar etc, lots more.

On August 31 2010 19:59 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2010 17:57 zulu_nation8 wrote: - The concept of Ubermensch itself honestly doesn't matter that much. It's basically a metaphor that embodies many recurrent N themes; importance of the agonal instinct, creating new values to replace old ones, etc.. this. I think it's impossible to understand most of the book if you haven't read any previous N work. In fact that's probably the only reason that copies of the book where given as gifts to German soldiers during WWI Loco, distance from others is indeed essential for N in order to have the flourishing of exceptional people (the bridge to the Übermensch---> humanity's new and life affirming goal, after the death of god). I don't see why this sort of distance is something that should be viewed as wrong by default,as I assume that you imply here   On August 31 2010 11:34 Loco wrote: So far I have not been impressed with his idea of the Ubermensch, which as Cioran has put, is naive, and could only come to life from someone observing men from a distance rather than living with them, and if there has been anything close to it in reality it has been Marcus Aurelius. I'm also curious about why Cioran found the whole theme naive

He talks about it in 'The Trouble With Being Born', I have the book in French though so I will try to translate as best as I can.

"To a student who wanted to know where I was at in relation to the author of Zarathustra, I responded that I had stopped practicing it a long time ago. Why? He asked. Because I find him to be too naive...

I reproach him his enthusiasm and up to his fervor. He only destroyed ideals to replace them for others. A fake iconoclast, with sides of an adolescent, and a virginity I don't know, what innocence, inherent to his career of solitude. He has only observed men from a distance. Had he watched them from close up, never would he have been able to conceive nor laud the overman, loony vision, laughable, if not grotesque, chimeric or whimsical that could only surge from the mind of someone who hadn't had the time to grow old, to know detachment, the long serene disgust.

Much closer to me is a Marcus Aurelius. No hesitation from me between the lyricism of frenzy and the prone of acceptation: I find more solace, and even more hope, next to a weary emperor than next to a dazzling prophet. "

My favorite artist and philosopher Austin Osman Spare was of a similar opinion. He claimed that the Greek Pantheism created the greatest men, "nearest yet to the Ideal State, (whatever its drawbacks)", and that the Superman died with them.

To be clear, the Stoics believed we were social animals and we had a duty toward others, they were against distancing oneself from the world. This is why I have preferred them to Buddhists or Hindus for example. They are concerned with their own personal salvation, it is a selfish act, while the Stoics were first and foremost humanists and they would never consider that, they would be more apt to say that if there is a salvation it is through mankind. The Stoic didn't need to retreat in his monastery to practice his philosophy and work towards becoming a sage, he did it while facing adversity and smiling at whatever 'bad' things happened to him. Maximus from the movie Gladiator when being sent to his death and reciting a Marcus Aurelius saying comes to mind.

he doesnt really explain why

On August 28 2010 19:27 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 19:10 Baal wrote:   On August 28 2010 16:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: I gave those examples to show people do stuff for a variety of reasons, the examples aren't meant to be taken literally. I also don't understand how following fashion is irrational? I just showed you some hypothetical reasons. Iop didn't explain very well why he spends a lot of money on clothes, his hobby certainly extends beyond mere function. But in response you and Loco basically called him a shallow, materialistic person for liking clothes. Maybe a bit too harsh? (I know he attacked you personally) Just because someone buys a $100+ pair of jeans doesn't mean his self-worth revolves around material possessions. People get disposable income, some like to buy shit with it. Who cares? following fashion is irrational, it serves no purpose but to segregate people who dont (fit in a social circle) as i stated earlier fashion is clearly not about pure aesthetics since its whimsy and what is hideous today will be great in 1 year. It is just like jewerly it serves not purpose but to show off wealth, class etc. maybe the purpose it serves them doesn't agree with your values. Irrational isn't the right word, their purpose merely follow a different kind of rationality. That's not to say humans do shit for the fuck of it all the time, maybe someone does like fashion just for the fuck of it. But usually people do have reasons for hobbies People sometimes buy jewelery just to look good or maybe even as an investment, etc. Just because someone views life different than you doesn't make it less right.

They dont agree with my values because most of my values are based on rationality (not indoctrinated by culture as u said previously), there is no such thing as different rationality, reason is one if this is not true then give me a reasonable explanation why people choose to wear jewelry?

And dont give me the reason of this one lonely man in burma who once had a golden ring, i mean society as a whole why do society desire jewelry by any other reason that is not to show off wealth...

Your previous argument as investment is irrational because you like to keep investments in a safe place, not carry them around increasing the chances of being stolen

jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value.

On September 01 2010 06:12 byrnesam wrote: jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value.

What? im not talking about the golden ring of your dead grand grand mother, i mean what you can buy right now in Tiffany Co.

On September 01 2010 07:30 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2010 06:12 byrnesam wrote: jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value. What? im not talking about the golden ring of your dead grand grand mother, i mean what you can buy right now in Tiffany Co.

The ring your great grand mother wore was once just a ring in a shop.