It was good we could collaborate like this. I made half of a character and you made the other half.

I much prefer my half.

So give it to is straight you jave two sentences i answer this.

Do you feel bad for the people in that school/town?

Two 8 word sentences

Facing death with open arms is better than with open legs.

Hahaha^

why didnt he kill the meaner gardeners?

i will slay a goat in their honour.

This is not being inhuman, this is flaunting inhumanity, flaunting inhumanity is (as I've already said 2 times) dued to immaturity and not to inhumanity.

---

And you speak of objectivity as if that is worthless in philosophy. If you treated philosophy with the rigour you would a science, you would not make so many faults in logic.

If you want to go around discussing how humans think subjectively then go make a thread about sociology or psychology. If you want to talk about what is objectively true then let's talk philosophy, and you can leave your naturalistic fallacies behind.

Following this kind of conception of philosophy the only thing to do is becoming nihilistic.
Nihilism was overcome not by me, but by Nietzsche for the first time.
You said of knowing Nietzsche, I think that if you would have really studied and understood Nietzsche deeply and not just superficially (as the 90% of people do, and as I did myself when I was 15) you should know how much objectiveness is totally irrilevant.
I won't say any more just because I think that you should understand this fact on your own as I did, and not being teached by someone else, that you won't even hear at.

I name dropped? Before Europe's obsession with Freud, Nietzsche, existentialism, and various post-war philosophies struggling to make sense of a world in which millions could kill millions, weren't Montaigne's ideas common knowledge? So if you, X, are permitted to spew philosophies of post-war negativity, angst, disorientation, and hopelessness, why can't I offer an idea from a simpler, earlier time?

"Human, all too human" is one perspective on "humanity" (ie, the species). When I say you lack "humanity" (ie, higher qualities that tend to separate humans from less developed animals), I am referring to something else.

It's wonderful that a young (you're 19 or so, right?), curious boy wants to read philosophy to better understand the world. But have you ever thought that your penchant for negative social criticism is leading you adrift? Do you read what humanists write? Or are you lost in the 20th century of reactionary doubt, skepticism, and negativity? Existentialism, nihilism, and anti-social tendencies aren't an especially good mix. It's like a boy with psychological imbalances experimenting with heavy drugs -- it isn't the wisest thing to do.

If you truly believe in existentialism and/or nihilism, anti-social jokes on a truly serious matter make you appear more psychology patient than philosopher. If you want to be original and philosophical using your Logic 101 phrasing and argumentative structure, wouldn't it work better if you didn't appear to be a leading character in a Camus novel? You want to be the author, the creator of ideas, right? This situation you're in (protagonist thinks he's the creator but is not) reminds me of Niebla, a Spanish existentialist novel by Unamuno. I'm sure there is an English translation. You might like it if you haven't already read it.

I forgot a thing:

- I disagree that such insight is relative to culture. Catholicism is more alien to me than Buddhism.

You assumed that everybody is more alien to Catholicism (or Cristianity actually) rather than Buddhsism, despite our occidental culture background.
My joke was referred to this very logical error...

http://warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=3555176

You're 2 hours from the boot in this game, gui.

Do you feel bad for the people in that school/town?

First of all Hell bender, now that we know you are capable of literacy, you have no excuse for your usual standard of posting.

The answer is not in particular. Pick out anyone in the world and there is virtually no chance that they do not have some problem or another, for which I could pity them. When I read about the intimate details of even fictional characters, or Trilussa's grandfather, I am capable of feeling bad for them.

I'm sure I would feel bad for those people if I weren't so averse to the hysteria that surrounds these events.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=andy+warhol+electric+chair&qs=n&form=QBIR&pq=andy+warhol+electric+chair&sc=1-26&sp=-1&sk=

http://www.kunstkonsum.de/Media/Shop/09071313.1.jpg

Following this kind of conception of philosophy the only thing to do is becoming nihilistic.

Yep. So your point is, that the only way you could disagree with me is if you weren't looking at the world as it truly is?

you should know how much objectiveness is totally irrilevant.

I do. Everything is meaningless. Objectivity is meaningless. Subjectivity is meaningless. Philosophy is meaningless - observe how Gui and the capybara beg me to throw it out the window when it comes to applying it to real life.

Incidentally, it appears that the abyss has stared back into me.

You assumed that everybody is more alien to Catholicism (or Cristianity actually) rather than Buddhsism, despite our occidental culture background.

It is you who assume. It is obvious to me that nobody here is a Buddhist. I don't see why you are all so scared of a different perspective? As a christian, you don't think any Asian can learn anything from Jesus? So why not we from Buddha? Mr. Trollussa, tear down this wall.

---

So if you, X, are permitted to spew philosophies of post-war negativity, angst, disorientation, and hopelessness

>spew

The Dalai Lama once said that "there is no need for temples; no need for complicated philosophy. Our own brain, our own heart is our temple; the philosophy is kindness."

Please name me one philosopher who is a true nihilist (I am as much an existentialist as a Mormon). I have looked but can find no-one. So I am spewing nobody's philosophy but my own.

Not that I wasn't influenced by Tolstoy's Confession. But it is a philosophy he rejects. And I disagree with some of his conclusions anyway.

why can't I offer an idea from a simpler, earlier time?

Saint Augustine wrote that "Faith is to believe what you do not see; the reward of this faith is to see what you believe."

An idea which you imply you do not agree with, and which therefore does not have any bearing on the discussion? Well, if you feel the need to coat your arguments with a thin veneer of borrowed credibility, go ahead.

When I say you lack "humanity" (ie, higher qualities that tend to separate humans from less developed animals), I am referring to something else.

Pierre Teilhard de Chardin claimed that "you are not a human being in search of a spiritual experience. You are a spiritual being immersed in a human experience."

Refer back to my first post. Hell bender invoked prayer, I invoked animal sacrifice. It's a line stolen from Christopher Hitchens, when people said they were praying for his terminal cancer. If being Christopher Hitchens is a less-developed animal than Hell bender, then I would prefer to devolve. Animal sacrifice is human. Female circumcision is human. War is human. Hubris is human. "Gun rights" is human. Living beyond our means is human. The universal neurosis is human. So is the ability to look at the world from a different, more accurate perspective. To create medicines rather than placebos. So don't make a monkey of me just yet.

wouldn't it work better if you didn't appear to be a leading character in a Camus novel?

According to Lu Xun, "hope cannot be said to exist, nor can it be said not to exist. It is just like roads across the earth. For actually the earth had no roads to begin with, but when many men pass one way, a road is made."

This is like a compliment to me. Now you mention it, I do feel like Mercault when he is executed for not caring about his mother's death enough. Too much respect for the dead, not enough for the living.

Anyway, to the previous paragraph, I am not interested in philosophy so I can impress women and fit into society better, like you, presumably. Your bourgeois complacency nauseates me. Which philosopher of merit was not an iconoclast?

Niebla, a Spanish existentialist novel by Unamuno. I'm sure there is an English translation. You might like it if you haven't already read it.

In the words of Woody Allen, "sex without love is a meaningless experience, but as far as meaningless experiences go, it's pretty damn good."

Thanks.

If you want to be original and philosophical using your Logic 101 phrasing and argumentative structure

"This isn't complicated enough, it must be wrong!"

And no, my orginality is incidental.

Gui, you're such a fucking hipster at philosophy. You're too cool for Camus, they have to be utterly obscure ("I'm sure there is an English translation"), a thousand years old ("It was common knowledge in the 7th century"), or both.

are we creating a tl;dr thread??

I feel as though we are in a cycle which is like this -->
x makes a controversial comment
he is questioned by others
x defends his comment backed by philosophies
x 's comment is prodded,poked and rebuttal-ed
x defends his comment backed by philosophies
x 's comment is prodded,poked and rebuttal-ed
x defends his comment backed by philosophies
x 's comment is prodded,poked and rebuttal-ed

To be honest we have not made any change in pattern or significant progress in this debate.Carry on Gentlemen.

I agree with Ironheart. This whole process has made me care less about the value of human life. And I have become a nihilistic existentialist. X has convinced me of the meaninglessness of all things.

@lolowut, sorry about that, "no" was too extreme.
i agree, that the us has a 5X larger population
but if you compare 300 to 8000 deaths due to firearms (not sure if bombs and stuff are included, i'd assume its insignificant anyway) its proportionally a huge difference, since 300X5 = 1500, so its still 1500 VS 8000, so about 6X less.

Ok since our great censor Ironheart said that the thread is becoming senseless (was it ever senseful?) this will be my last post here:


It is you who assume. It is obvious to me that nobody here is a Buddhist. I don't see why you are all so scared of a different perspective? As a christian, you don't think any Asian can learn anything from Jesus? So why not we from Buddha?

I love how many times I have to write the very same thing in order to let you understand it: while cattolicism is infulenced by the occidental one, so while I could (but I didn't) assume that a cattolic concept could be properly understood by an occidental guy.

What I will say for the last time is that you posted a buddhist oriented fragment pretending of convincing everybody that you were right from that very fragment.
And since you pretended this, you must have assumed that everybody are buddhists or already influenced from Buddhism (like you).
This is way I've made that joke...

---

Yep. So your point is, that the only way you could disagree with me is if you weren't looking at the world as it truly is?

you should know how much objectiveness is totally irrilevant.


I do. Everything is meaningless. Objectivity is meaningless. Subjectivity is meaningless. Philosophy is meaningless.

Before of the real argumentation, i just want to underline a paradox:

You became nihilist because the search for the truth is impossible, the consequence of nihilism is that the truth is irrilevant, but your becoming nihilistic was dued to the very search of truth and in this way you gave the truth the relevance that your philosophy denies...

Anyway let's go with the real argumentation:
Subjectivity is meaningless
Subjectivity is meaningless from an objective view, objective views don't exist.
Subjectivity is not meaningless from a subjective view, subjective views do exist.
The death of God (just to quote Nietzsche) is the death of objectivity, the raise of the UberMensch is the raise of subjectivity.
Subjectivity is irrilevant for everybody except the subject itself, since you are a subject your subjectivity is relevant; from your personal subjectivity you can give meaning to whatever has a meaning for you.
In this way every man produces his own meaning (and we are to the Heidegger part), so metaforically speaking every man (and not only the Uber one) is god, and everything has sence and relevance.
This is the reason why nihilism was totally overcomed in 20th century, this is the reason why Heidegger is considered the final philopher, and this is the reason also why I will elect myself as the winner of this discussion :D

Wooah warflow where are you getting your fact numbers from on death by guns in france and usa not even a source.800 people cannot die a year from guns because in New york sate 445 die from gun homicides(57% of murders in NY),470 in pennslyvania(74% of PLA).
And i don't think we can compare france to USA since in Pennslyvania with a lot less people there is more gun related homicides.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep/27/gun-crime-map-statistics

It's by 100,000 pop by the way so even worst.

The US keep a database about accidents, the so called National Violent Death Report. It covers 16 US states with a total of about 82 Mio inhabitants. This is a nice number, because it equal the no of inhabitants in Germany.

http://wisqars.cdc.gov:8080/nvdrs/nvdrsDisplay.jsp

This link opens a mask to inquire the database. With respect to deaths caused by firearms, no matter if homicide, accident or else i get the number of 8,021 people in 2009, the latest year that can be inquired. In 2008 it were 7,862 people, in 2006 it were 7497. In 2006 for Germany 155 people did of firearms.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffenmissbrauch
^^only in German language only


This is a ratio of about 1:46, german firearm casualties:us firearm casualties.

The number of registered weapons in Germany is about 10 Million, source: see above. The number of weapons in the whole USA is estimated to 270 million, source: http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states. So the weapons ratio normalized with respect to inhabitants is about 1:7.

The conclusions are quite clear: The more firearms, the more casualties. And the more qualified the weapons owners are, the less casualties, because you need to qualify in several very restictive ways to become a gun owner in Germany, much more restrictive than in even the most restrictive state in the US.

So reading the nationwide U.S. polls made shortly after the Newtown massacre, if to enforce more/better gun control, the vast majority of voters still sees no reason to do so. How disappointing. Looks like the only possible hope for less school-massacres in the U.S. is based on intesified praying. So lets all pray, but not for the victims, but for those still alive.

Need to correct the 1:46 ratio. Its due to the ratio of german and us americans just about a 4th, because it looks like the database covers all states of the US and not just 16.

So the ratio is about: 1:11

Nevertheless, the conclusions to be drawn dont change.

I come back and find this monster of a thread. This event saddened me.

I worry about x's grasp on humanity and reality. They say not feeling saddness/compassion is a sign of a sociopath. X please do not anything foolhardy.

As I go to church for Christmas these people will be in my prayers. Merry Christmas to you all.

finally a good person