DEATH - Page 2

On September 18 2019 22:41 LemOn[5thF] wrote: Show nested quote + On September 18 2019 20:37 RiKD wrote: Is death bad? Is immortality bad? If life is good it seems to be a dilemma. I think we've actually talked about aspects of this many times on LP. What would be ideal? Staying 28 physically until age 5,000 and dying in one's sleep? Unfortunately, none of us will be that lucky. (SENs vs. climate emergency). The last portion of the book is entitled "Living with Death." Let's find out what's in store. Would that be lucky at all though Harari talked about this There really might become a point with technology Where the rich might achieve a de-facto immortality Destroying the balance and one thing all people have in common And if you don't die and presumably eventually don't age with cyborg bodies - what's the rush to do anything, or purpose? I kindof like the certainty I will die And the certain uncertainty of now knowing when

Actual immortality would be horrible. Mortality when you are blind, deaf, dumb, crippled at 150 and live to anything past 150 would be pretty horrible. I could see 28 year old physicality and brain and living to 300 - 5,000 or so to be pretty desirable. It would be horrible for the planet if this were possible. As May notes death allows for the next generation.

Being immortal there isn't a rush or any purpose. That is the capacity to not die for infinite years. Let's say if SENs or another organization figures out how to end atherosclerosis and we can live to 200 years as a mortal (car crash, etc. would still end life) that would widely be considered a good thing.

It doesn't really matter though because the rich are generally horrible and the human race is doomed to the climate emergency. Of course the rich would worry about SENs, cyborg parts, saving their consciousness, going to Mars, how to handle the security in the face of an apocalypse, et al. facing the scientific facts of global heating. Aka trying to ignore and disregard the scientific facts of global heating. Denying climate emergency just as they deny death.

On September 18 2019 07:02 Loco wrote: Their philosophies are not compatible with one another. The Stoics, just as Aristotle later presented it, believed that "man is a political animal" and they taught that you could only live virtuously if you were engaged in civic life and helping your fellow men. The Epicureans withdrew from political life entirely because they saw it as too troubling and frustrating and that went against their ultimate aim of attaining tranquility through pleasure. "Humans [are] living their death, dying their life" - Heraclitus. Destruction and creation are complementary processes. Creation is just as inevitable as destruction is. Even though life will end on this planet, and life was improbable here, there is a good case to be made that it is also inevitable in the universe. The only reason we can live is because we are constantly dying and regenerating ourselves, we are negentropic beings. We could live for a very long time as a species if our forms of social organization weren't so anti-life. Some people's contributions are not really perishable in the common sense-- they are contributions to a body of abstract knowledge and practices that are then passed down through the generations. This is what separates us from all of the other animals and allowed us to move beyond base Darwinian pressures. Humans are symbolic beings that are both the products and the creators of a culture that retroacts on them. They can leave something that's very much real behind them: information. And information is not matter or energy, it is only information, as Norbert Weiner said. It requires matter and energy but it is not reducible to it. Energy itself cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics). Merleau-Ponty is the one who got it right when he said that humans are condemned to meaning. We are historico-cultural beings constantly constructing life, perception itself is a co-constructive process, not a representational one, as Maturana and Varela showed. We are not passively experiencing life through consciousness. We cannot separate meaning from our own active/co-creating consciousnesses and interests; we do not have access to some objective vantage point by which we can claim to speak disinterestedly, "in the name of the universe" and from where we come back with the realization that "it's all meaningless". I think those who constantly talk of meaninglessness do so more out of a motivation to rationalize their personal feelings of impotence or their unwillingness to live as adults engaged in the world than anything else.

Exactly my point, in your fist sentence, both a mixure of both is the way to go and stop pulling greek philosophy into your left-wing bullshit, give it a rest you tankie bot.

What does it have to do with anything if we could or not live a long time as a species in regards to meaning? what information do we leave behind? it will all be destroyed and even if it magically didn't it wouldnt ammount remotely to any form of personal meaning.

Of course we can speak disinterestedly "in the name of the universe", its quite self evident, but I agree that we are indeed "condemned" to meaning, and that most people who talk about meaninglessness are about rationalizing their personal feelings, its a natural state upon realilzation but it ideally should be a temporal state.

On September 18 2019 23:16 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On September 18 2019 07:02 Loco wrote: Their philosophies are not compatible with one another. The Stoics, just as Aristotle later presented it, believed that "man is a political animal" and they taught that you could only live virtuously if you were engaged in civic life and helping your fellow men. The Epicureans withdrew from political life entirely because they saw it as too troubling and frustrating and that went against their ultimate aim of attaining tranquility through pleasure. "Humans [are] living their death, dying their life" - Heraclitus. Destruction and creation are complementary processes. Creation is just as inevitable as destruction is. Even though life will end on this planet, and life was improbable here, there is a good case to be made that it is also inevitable in the universe. The only reason we can live is because we are constantly dying and regenerating ourselves, we are negentropic beings. We could live for a very long time as a species if our forms of social organization weren't so anti-life. Some people's contributions are not really perishable in the common sense-- they are contributions to a body of abstract knowledge and practices that are then passed down through the generations. This is what separates us from all of the other animals and allowed us to move beyond base Darwinian pressures. Humans are symbolic beings that are both the products and the creators of a culture that retroacts on them. They can leave something that's very much real behind them: information. And information is not matter or energy, it is only information, as Norbert Weiner said. It requires matter and energy but it is not reducible to it. Energy itself cannot be created or destroyed (first law of thermodynamics). Merleau-Ponty is the one who got it right when he said that humans are condemned to meaning. We are historico-cultural beings constantly constructing life, perception itself is a co-constructive process, not a representational one, as Maturana and Varela showed. We are not passively experiencing life through consciousness. We cannot separate meaning from our own active/co-creating consciousnesses and interests; we do not have access to some objective vantage point by which we can claim to speak disinterestedly, "in the name of the universe" and from where we come back with the realization that "it's all meaningless". I think those who constantly talk of meaninglessness do so more out of a motivation to rationalize their personal feelings of impotence or their unwillingness to live as adults engaged in the world than anything else. Exactly my point, in your fist sentence, both a mixure of both is the way to go and stop pulling greek philosophy into your left-wing bullshit, give it a rest you tankie bot. What does it have to do with anything if we could or not live a long time as a species in regards to meaning? what information do we leave behind? it will all be destroyed and even if it magically didn't it wouldnt ammount remotely to any form of personal meaning. Of course we can speak disinterestedly "in the name of the universe", its quite self evident, but I agree that we are indeed "condemned" to meaning, and that most people who talk about meaninglessness are about rationalizing their personal feelings, its a natural state upon realilzation but it ideally should be a temporal state.

A mixture of what? Why be so vague? One school's proposition is that we have social and civic duties, the other states that we don't. How do you mix that? Even if you are arguing that you should be "involved just a little bit in politics", that's still not mixing things; it's being on the Stoics' side and a rejection of Epicureanism ...

Can you actually be precise and explain how I am "pulling greek philosophy into left-wing bullshit"? I have only said what you can find in any philosophical resource on Stoicism. So what you are really implying is that encyclopedias of philosophy are corrupt by leftists then? Can you tell me who the real authorities are on Stoicism then?

You wanna know something else? Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was a dirtbag leftist just like me:

''[Zeno] who was much influenced by the Cynics, described his vision of an egalitarian utopian society around 300 BC.[23] Zeno's Republic advocates a form of anarchism where there is no need for state structures. He argued that although the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads humans to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct, namely sociability. Like many modern anarchists, he believed that if people follow their instincts, they will have no need of law courts or police, no temples and no public worship, and use no money—free gifts taking the place of monetary exchanges.'' (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism#Forerunners_of_anarchism)

See a mention of free market economics there? Did Molyneux not teach you about that inconvenient part during his educational courses on Greek philosophy? C'est dommage, now you've had to make a fool of yourself because of him.

You don't know what the word "tankie" means, so don't throw it around so casually. That statement is beyond pathetic and the equivalent of me calling you a Nazi bot, so I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.

I don't know what to do. Sometimes I get really caught up in a book and it is great but then I finish it and then what is there to do. I have some other books I can read but i just had a large dinner and don't want to end up getting acid reflux like I did the other night which was absolutely terrible.

I suppose I still have some questions. Should we live in the present as Marcus Aurelius aspired to or should we have some cognizance of the future?

Personally, I don't even know what completely living in the present would mean. I don't even know what that looks like as a human being. It's almost like trying to cheat death but death and the uncertainty of death cannot be cheated.

On September 18 2019 07:02 Loco wrote: The Stoics, just as Aristotle later presented it, believed that "man is a political animal" and they taught that you could only live virtuously if you were engaged in civic life and helping your fellow men. The Epicureans withdrew from political life entirely because they saw it as too troubling and frustrating and that went against their ultimate aim of attaining tranquility through pleasure.

The never-ending "battle" of introverts and extroverts

On September 18 2019 20:59 Stroggoz wrote: some cultures view death as a pretty good thing. Thracians about 2500 years ago for example celebrated when someone died and mourned when someone was born (because of all the suffering they would have to endure). I personally am pretty indifferent.

Weird. We're somewhat descendants of Thracians (and obviously a bunch of others) and was also taught that in school. I never ended actually checking the fact and I was taught quite a lot of shit in history in class, so assumed it was just a folks-tale given to little kids in history books, but if you know about that then it must've been true. It was a thing left in my mind from around 4th grade.

On September 19 2019 03:24 Loco wrote: Exactly my point, in your fist sentence, both a mixure of both is the way to go and stop pulling greek philosophy into your left-wing bullshit, give it a rest you tankie bot. What does it have to do with anything if we could or not live a long time as a species in regards to meaning? what information do we leave behind? it will all be destroyed and even if it magically didn't it wouldnt ammount remotely to any form of personal meaning. Of course we can speak disinterestedly "in the name of the universe", its quite self evident, but I agree that we are indeed "condemned" to meaning, and that most people who talk about meaninglessness are about rationalizing their personal feelings, its a natural state upon realilzation but it ideally should be a temporal state.

A mixture of what? Why be so vague? One school's proposition is that we have social and civic duties, the other states that we don't. How do you mix that? Even if you are arguing that you should be "involved just a little bit in politics", that's still not mixing things; it's being on the Stoics' side and a rejection of Epicureanism ...

Can you actually be precise and explain how I am "pulling greek philosophy into left-wing bullshit"? I have only said what you can find in any philosophical resource on Stoicism. So what you are really implying is that encyclopedias of philosophy are corrupt by leftists then? Can you tell me who the real authorities are on Stoicism then?

You wanna know something else? Zeno of Citium, the founder of Stoicism, was a dirtbag leftist just like me:

''[Zeno] who was much influenced by the Cynics, described his vision of an egalitarian utopian society around 300 BC.[23] Zeno's Republic advocates a form of anarchism where there is no need for state structures. He argued that although the necessary instinct of self-preservation leads humans to egotism, nature has supplied a corrective to it by providing man with another instinct, namely sociability. Like many modern anarchists, he believed that if people follow their instincts, they will have no need of law courts or police, no temples and no public worship, and use no money—free gifts taking the place of monetary exchanges.'' (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_anarchism#Forerunners_of_anarchism)

See a mention of free market economics there? Did Molyneux not teach you about that inconvenient part during his educational courses on Greek philosophy? C'est dommage, now you've had to make a fool of yourself because of him.

You don't know what the word "tankie" means, so don't throw it around so casually. That statement is beyond pathetic and the equivalent of me calling you a Nazi bot, so I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your post.[/QUOTE]

A mixure meaning that both had valid points, often duty will force you inot politics but also you don't have to be involved in pollitics to live a virtuous life. And seeing what politics did to you, I say epicureans also had a good pont.

Quasi ascetic philosophers from 2,500 years ago weren't for capitalism? what a shock!... I was hoping to find for advice about shorting the S&P500 in Aruelius's mediations.

The guys who randomly calls others fascism enablers gets angry when he gets called a tankie lol, hypocrite much?

But you are a fascist enabler while Loco is not a tankie.

I considered banning you from my blog for making the tankie comment because it's really just bad behavior. Clearly Loco is not a Stalin sympathizer and it's just a very bad joke or trying to provoke someone.

I would appreciate it if discussion is kept civil.

tankie enabler then lol

At least that is a better joke but Loco if I'm not mistaken is anarchist so it doesn't really pan out. I don't really want to get into that. You have a history of posting flat out right-wing lies specifically in regards to the Andy Ngo/Portland discussion which could be described as fascist enabling. Anarchism and Communism does not equal Stalinism. We've been through the arguments before. I'd rather discuss:

Is there value in living in the present? Why was Marcus Aurelius so obsessed with living in the present? How does that even work?

I read parts of Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" probably 9 years ago and I have not read much on the Stoics. So, someone can answer the questions or I find these questions important enough to go back and read the Stoics and Marcus Aurelius's "Meditations" and then find all the other philosophy that deals with these questions and go from there.

Thanks Richard (and Stroggoz as well)

I'm such a tankie enabler, that's why they ban me from their subs when I counter their propaganda.



When you have to lie so desperately to try to get the upper hand in a debate...

On September 20 2019 01:51 Baalim wrote: Quasi ascetic philosophers from 2,500 years ago weren't for capitalism? what a shock!... I was hoping to find for advice about shorting the S&P500 in Aruelius's mediations.

"Plato's political philosophy has been the subject of much criticism. In Plato's Republic, Socrates is highly critical of democracy and proposes an aristocracy ruled by philosopher-kings. Plato's political philosophy has thus often been considered totalitarian." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_political_philosophy)

Nice try, fail better next time. Zeno's anarchist views were not common in Ancient Greece at all.

A mixure meaning that both had valid points, often duty will force you inot politics but also you don't have to be involved in pollitics to live a virtuous life. And seeing what politics did to you, I say epicureans also had a good pont.

"Politics" didn't do anything to me, living in a society where I felt like I didn't belong did. Seeing people toil away trying to pursue the American Dream only to ruin themselves and create broken families (of which I am a part of) did. Being taken advantage of by people who have been taught to only think of themselves did. Losing friends to drug addictions because they cannot cope with the reality of our world and because this society is not set up to be able to help them did. Learning about "politics" made me become more aware, and that's not always a pleasant thing, but I happen to be more joyful now than I have ever been.

The guys who randomly calls others fascism enablers gets angry when he gets called a tankie lol, hypocrite much?

Just because I point out that you are pathetic doesn't mean I was angry. I could not have been more calm in ready your pathetic response. I have backed my claim that you have been radicalized by a fascist by providing evidence of (1) him being a fascist and (2) you sharing his talking points and economic ideology (an ideology that serves to advance fascism), as well as showing proof that you are literally taking the word of fascists on the internet as accurate and sharing their tweets. Unlike you, I posted evidence a number of times. I didn't just read a buzzword on the internet and started using it against all common sense. I have denounced Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism and all groups that support forming hierarchical structures of dominance/vanguard parties on here a number of times. I have pointed out that historically, they have always betrayed (i.e. murdered) anarchists. Anarchists despise tankies a lot more than right-wing libertarians do because we actually have a historical reason to. Right-wing libertarians have never had any skin in the game, so their pretense of caring is just comical.


"The anarcho-communists do not deny the need for coordination between groups, for discipline, for meticulous planning, and for unity in action. But they believe that coordination, discipline, planning, and unity in action must be achieved voluntarily, by means of a self-discipline nourished by conviction and understanding, not by coercion and a mindless, unquestioning obedience to orders from above. They seek to achieve the effectiveness imputed to centralism by means of voluntarism and insight, not by establishing a hierarchical, centralized structure. Depending upon needs or circumstances, affinity groups can achieve this effectiveness through assemblies, action committees, and local, regional or national conferences. But they vigorously oppose the establishment of an organizational structure that becomes an end in itself, of committees that linger on after their practical tasks have been completed, of a "leadership" that reduces the "revolutionary" to a mindless robot."

- Murray Bookchin (From "Listen, Marxist!", 1969)

On September 19 2019 22:23 Spitfiree wrote: Show nested quote + On September 18 2019 07:02 Loco wrote: The Stoics, just as Aristotle later presented it, believed that "man is a political animal" and they taught that you could only live virtuously if you were engaged in civic life and helping your fellow men. The Epicureans withdrew from political life entirely because they saw it as too troubling and frustrating and that went against their ultimate aim of attaining tranquility through pleasure. The never-ending "battle" of introverts and extroverts   On September 18 2019 20:59 Stroggoz wrote: some cultures view death as a pretty good thing. Thracians about 2500 years ago for example celebrated when someone died and mourned when someone was born (because of all the suffering they would have to endure). I personally am pretty indifferent. Weird. We're somewhat descendants of Thracians (and obviously a bunch of others) and was also taught that in school. I never ended actually checking the fact and I was taught quite a lot of shit in history in class, so assumed it was just a folks-tale given to little kids in history books, but if you know about that then it must've been true. It was a thing left in my mind from around 4th grade.

haha never believe anything in school, or anything i write for that matter, i read it from an extremely unreliable historian named herodotus, in the same book he also claims africa has goatmen, ethiopians have black coloured semen, and giant ants mine gold for India to pay their tribute to the persian empire. he also made a claim that a spartan king defeated persia with only several thousand hoplites. So it may be true it's not too likely to be true but then again it's not something you'd expect to be a lie.

There is still at least one existing culture that still celebrates death and mourns birth, the Rajasthani Tribe. Gnostics, Manicheans, Priscillians, Bogomils and Cathars also had similar beliefs in that they believed procreation was evil.

Herodotus is considered "the father" of history and am pretty sure he was living in current Bulgarian territories for some time, so prob same data source as my kid history books

lmao that communism subreddit reddit: "marxist answers only"; unashamedy worshiping the marxist religion eh.

On September 20 2019 06:27 Loco wrote: Thanks Richard (and Stroggoz as well) I'm such a tankie enabler, that's why they ban me from their subs when I counter their propaganda. When you have to lie so desperately to try to get the upper hand in a debate...

enablers get the bullet too I guess lol

On September 20 2019 06:48 Loco wrote: "Plato's political philosophy has been the subject of much criticism. In Plato's Republic, Socrates is highly critical of democracy and proposes an aristocracy ruled by philosopher-kings. Plato's political philosophy has thus often been considered totalitarian." (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_political_philosophy) Nice try, fail better next time. Zeno's anarchist views were not common in Ancient Greece at all.

What does Socrates has to do with what we are talking about?

What I meant is that people 2500 years ago don't have much weight into 21th century economic models, the same way you take Marcus Aurelius views on the importance of military life with a grain of salt, I thought it was quite obvious when I mentioned the S&P500 -_-

"Politics" didn't do anything to me, living in a society where I felt like I didn't belong did. Seeing people toil away trying to pursue the American Dream only to ruin themselves and create broken families (of which I am a part of) did. Being taken advantage of by people who have been taught to only think of themselves did. Losing friends to drug addictions because they cannot cope with the reality of our world and because this society is not set up to be able to help them did. Learning about "politics" made me become more aware, and that's not always a pleasant thing, but I happen to be more joyful now than I have ever been.

I've also had friends who were murdered, who killed themselves, who died of drugaddiction, I don't blame the economic model though.

Well good to know you are happier, I am happier now that I'm less engaged, so again, I think epicureans had a point, not only in regards to politics and thats what I mean both philosphies not only can co-exist but can be complimentary.

you sharing his talking points and economic ideology (an ideology that serves to advance fascism)

oh the good old "you like the free market, you are a fascist" argument again? lol.

both can play this game, you'd like to erradicate the free market, so you share that with Stalin, ergo you are indeed a tankie.

as well as showing proof that you are literally taking the word of fascists on the internet as accurate and sharing their tweets.[/quote[ Tweets exposing how shitty Antifa is aren't going to be from people you like, surprise! [quote] I have denounced Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism and all groups that support forming hierarchical structures of dominance/vanguard parties on here a number of times.

And I denoucne any form of ethnostate, ethnicity/sexuality/gender based unity, don't like the concept of nations, I've even said culture is worthless but that hasn't stopped you from mischaracterizing me has it?

I have pointed out that historically, they have always betrayed anarchists. Anarchists despise tankies a lot more than right-wing libertarians do because we actually have a historical reason to. Right-wing libertarians have never had any skin in the game, so their pretense of caring is just comical.

What is comical is you adhering to the history of people long dead across the globe, you are just some guy in Canada with some silly ideas, you haven't fought shit, you don't have any more or less skin in the game than I do

Identity politics are disgusting.

Oh, another day. Tomorrow I get to bust my ass for a meagre living. I don't even mind the meagre living much it's the busting my ass that gets tiresome. All to die one day. Any day now. Shouldn't that fire me up? I have realized that I've really fallen into routines and comforts. I had a text conversation with a really awesome friend today. I read the previous one from December. I have not really changed at all except I stopped shoehorning "wage slavery" and "comrade" into a every text. We are both on the fence with AA. It's hard. Difficult. You crash your life into the ground as bad as we did and then have this entity that was their to help us back on our feet it's tough to part. You gotta go into AA situations with the "Marxist approved" bullshit like in a Communism 101 sub-reddit. The prime one being that there is a God's will that we can live in and that the only way to get there is to pray for it.

I need friends. We've been through this before. This is not a lecture these are meditations. That's why they are repetitive. I need to get out of my comfort zone. I am going to die for crying out loud! As great as reading and re-reading "Infinite Jest" are there are other cool things outside too. My work schedule actually does make this difficult but it's still an excuse.

How is a sober 35 year old going to meet people?

Serious question.