i didn't say all, i said as a whole to the planet, which means at least 50%, and yes we are definitely bad as a whole to the planet. we do not fucking fit the definition of " the most amazing thing ever."
the fact that i've been down voted for a simple fucking fact is gross.
alright well i suppose we agree then. the reason i’ve been arguing is because it seems as through you were being a nihilist and arguing against the value of human life and it potential to be ethical.
if all you’re saying is that some humans fucked the planet up and as a result humankind collectively had a negative input on the earth, then yeah that’s just fact i agree with you.
can’t be letting them nihilists infiltrate the movement, it’s literally a death-knell for effective praxis
i am against the value of human life. we have not been valuable to the thing that sustains us. i am against our 'potential to be ethical.' we have not proven taht to be our nature.
i am saying that most humans fuck up the planet, ans the reuslt of humankind collectively has had a negative impact on the earth.
the idea that you 'can't let nihilists infiltrate the movement' is slurring me. i'm not a nihilist in that i believe only negativity prevails, what i believe is that humans, not life, as a whole, has definitely had a negative impact.
you on the otherhand have had nothing and will have nothign to present as far as evidence hat we as a species have had a positive impact on this planet. because you can't. because we don't. accept that shit mother fucker.
no it’s just i don’t have the patience to explain the critique of pure reason to you. however, if you read it you would understand that you’re answer to the question asked isn’t wrong, the question itself is nonsensical. and thus any answer yielded will be nonsense. you’re trying to evaluate human life from a perspective outside human perspective. that is literally impossible.
well i was operating on the sense of nihilism as Nietzsche defines it when he literally creates the term. the denial of life, specifically human life sense it is the only life of whose meaning it makes sense for humans to speak of (see wittgenstein russel and kant). you’re effectively saying all human efforts to create a better life are worthless because you see us as a whole as negatively contributing. what value do you ascribe to human life if not negative?
the entire concept. humans don't make concept, logic exists despite human beings. if you think a human made one log and one log make two logs you're part of the problem.
this just in, “humans don’t make concepts.”
so i guess the concepts are just out there floating in space waiting to be found, not created, by humans. you neo-platonist nerd
ideology =/= philosophic standpoint or even political standpoint
ideology is the lease through which you unconsciously view the world. it’s literally like integral to your experience that you experience things ideologically. read zizek when you’re done with kant
i did you just don’t agree with me and so i don’t want to have to give you a proof which would require much more length than me just giving you my idea as i’ve already done
if you already did, they didn't seem to provide any knowledge that contradicts the points i've voiced. so if you can't back them up then all you've got is some guys name.
no i said what i thought ideology to be and you disagreed, in order for me to convince you we would have to have a long dialogue that i don’t desire having with you because you don’t have the background knowledge to make it worthwhile. it would literally just be me explains the sublime object of ideology to you, and that’s not something i care to do
it’s not really a theoretically significant term to be honest. i’d imagine zizek is using it to convey the sense that ideology isn’t literally a direct object of our senses but is instead the way in which objects are configured within our senses. again it’s not really a technical term though.
my position has lots of information to back it up dude.
so you think you can say all humans are bad? that’s what you’re saying when you say humankind is bad right?
i didn't say all, i said as a whole to the planet, which means at least 50%, and yes we are definitely bad as a whole to the planet. we do not fucking fit the definition of " the most amazing thing ever."
the fact that i've been down voted for a simple fucking fact is gross.
alright well i suppose we agree then. the reason i’ve been arguing is because it seems as through you were being a nihilist and arguing against the value of human life and it potential to be ethical. if all you’re saying is that some humans fucked the planet up and as a result humankind collectively had a negative input on the earth, then yeah that’s just fact i agree with you. can’t be letting them nihilists infiltrate the movement, it’s literally a death-knell for effective praxis
i am against the value of human life. we have not been valuable to the thing that sustains us. i am against our 'potential to be ethical.' we have not proven taht to be our nature.
i am saying that most humans fuck up the planet, ans the reuslt of humankind collectively has had a negative impact on the earth.
the idea that you 'can't let nihilists infiltrate the movement' is slurring me. i'm not a nihilist in that i believe only negativity prevails, what i believe is that humans, not life, as a whole, has definitely had a negative impact.
you on the otherhand have had nothing and will have nothign to present as far as evidence hat we as a species have had a positive impact on this planet. because you can't. because we don't. accept that shit mother fucker.
okay nevermind i guess you still need to just go read kant. it would fix your brainworms
'kant absolves humanity. everything is okay now.'
no it’s just i don’t have the patience to explain the critique of pure reason to you. however, if you read it you would understand that you’re answer to the question asked isn’t wrong, the question itself is nonsensical. and thus any answer yielded will be nonsense. you’re trying to evaluate human life from a perspective outside human perspective. that is literally impossible.
i know philosphy, i just don't accept some dude's thoughts as a frame work for my own. maybe you should question why you do.
have you read kant?
yeah i've taken a philosophy class or two. it doesn't effect my view on morality.
well you’d know then that your saying that the value of human life is negative is literally nihilism
no, nihilism is the belief that all life is meaningless. i didn't say anything like that. in fact what i said was in contradiction to that.
well i was operating on the sense of nihilism as Nietzsche defines it when he literally creates the term. the denial of life, specifically human life sense it is the only life of whose meaning it makes sense for humans to speak of (see wittgenstein russel and kant). you’re effectively saying all human efforts to create a better life are worthless because you see us as a whole as negatively contributing. what value do you ascribe to human life if not negative?
human life is negative. this is mathematically provable. human life is a negative value on everything isn't a human.
before you attack this with words, do you have any mathematics to back up what your claim is? because i do.
LOLLLLLLLLL im wasting my time conversing with such an inferior being
Well this was still a sort of interesting exchange until you literally called them an "inferior being", christ.
i’ve been around my dad too much jesus christ
and you claim that you're a fucking vegetarian. i eat chicken wings all day mother fucker, but i don't pretend that it's morally cohesive.
you are a fucking pathetic human being.
everyone in this thread who you called pathetic said that you’re projecting. maybe you’re right, this might not be the place for you
maybe, fuck you
you really just need to read more man, haha book makes intelligence go brrrr
i don't think you understand the concept of the 'go brrr' meme
the human concept of go brrr or the non-human concept go brrr?
the entire concept. humans don't make concept, logic exists despite human beings. if you think a human made one log and one log make two logs you're part of the problem.
this just in, “humans don’t make concepts.” so i guess the concepts are just out there floating in space waiting to be found, not created, by humans. you neo-platonist nerd
yes... they are. i'm sorry you can't understand that and have to resort to throwing out insults over it.
how are you a marxist if you’re not a materialist lmfao. are you literally an idealist
i don't resort to others making up an ideology for me. i just think things through.
deleted by creator
ideology =/= philosophic standpoint or even political standpoint
ideology is the lease through which you unconsciously view the world. it’s literally like integral to your experience that you experience things ideologically. read zizek when you’re done with kant
you first statement is entirely wrong. an ideology is a philosophic standpoint that should not contradict a political standpoint that you hold.
nah just read zizek then you’ll understand what i mean
nah, i'll just inform you of real world concepts and not have to resort to saying "read ____"
it would take too long an too much effort to understand. if you want to know the work i’m referencing it’s “the sublime object of ideology”
jesus christ, learn to put your fucking ideas into words or you obviously don't understand them mother fucker.
i did you just don’t agree with me and so i don’t want to have to give you a proof which would require much more length than me just giving you my idea as i’ve already done
if you already did, they didn't seem to provide any knowledge that contradicts the points i've voiced. so if you can't back them up then all you've got is some guys name.
no i said what i thought ideology to be and you disagreed, in order for me to convince you we would have to have a long dialogue that i don’t desire having with you because you don’t have the background knowledge to make it worthwhile. it would literally just be me explains the sublime object of ideology to you, and that’s not something i care to do
lol define the word sublime.
it’s not really a theoretically significant term to be honest. i’d imagine zizek is using it to convey the sense that ideology isn’t literally a direct object of our senses but is instead the way in which objects are configured within our senses. again it’s not really a technical term though.