You know that certificate that proves you were born? Its actually a birthing certificate that proves the vessel of your body is the property of your government the potential value of which has been borrowed against from the Rothschild's to fuel their dominance.
But there is only one thing after all anyway, so whatever, who cares. "You" don't anything or "you" owns everything or is everything. Meh, is it really all that interesting to think about?
Better question, will can the Sox beat the Yanks in the post season?
this is true as long as you get rid of the specific schizo details. capitalism borrows from the future, so it requires infinite growth, infinite bodies, and the maintenance of a "spook" social contract to keep those bodies in line (that you were essentially coerced into agreeing with, especially since there is no longer any wilderness that you can escape to)
The Stoics, Sartre, and the specific section in the Phenomenology of Spirit where the master/slave dialectic moves over into the dialectic of stoicism.
>Phenomenology of Spirit where the master/slave dialectic moves over into the dialectic of stoicism.
Ah yes, surely Hegel will have something enlightening to say about this topic.
Oh wait, it's just 30 pages of barely intelligible gibberish which doesn't engage with any of the actual arguments in Stoicism.
>then the "right to life" disappears as soon as we're talking about poor or disabled people
What the frick are you talking about, schizo? The strawmen in your head have got to the point of complete utter nonsense.
Hell yeah. I read it when I was 13 and it led to the most empowering years of my life. Went from WoW addicted chubby nerd in 8th grade to varsity wrestler and heavy lifter by my senior year of high school. Nothing but hard work and autism.
I would venture to say that we don't even own that in the traditional sense. Rather we're in a mutually beneficent relationship with our bodies. We'll die if it dies, it'll die if we die. We work with our bodies until one of us gives out.
>if i find fulfillment in stuff that isnt hurting anyone, then theres no issue with it.
kek, people who think like this are guaranteed to be risk averse giga pussies irl.
Everything enjoyable either hurts someone somehow or is a waste of time that could be better spent helping people. Who cares? God helps those who help themselves. I just want to try and minimise how much of an arsehole I am.
Most people have no control over their base human desires, so they will disagree with the statement. Me on the other hand? I have transcended such trivialities. The phrase is an interesting way to gauge where people are at in terms of their personal freedoms.
>The sensible body of nature is far removed from essential generation. One can be dissolved, but the other is indissoluble; one is mortal, the other immortal. Do you not know that you have been born a god and a child of the one, as I, too, have?
I think it's mostly true. Outside of defects and the like, our bodies are mostly up to us. We can't really control most things because it's inherently outside of our control, like trying to make sure people don't fall in a pot hole or whatever. You can put up signs, but ultimately, it's up to the person to fall in the hole or not. Even those with supposed power, like prime ministers, CEOs, dictators, HR ladies can only influence so much.
Not literally, no, but we nourish and nurture it the best of our abilities. We can smoke till our lungs give out and chop off a hand. You can dye your hair. It's not just the one thing you truly have control over, but it's also mostly up to you too. Nobody else can force you to take care of it.
You're an autist and egoism isn't valid ontology. How can you say a King with an army at his beck and call isn't more powerful than you when he can easily coerce you and a hundred others with threats of state violence? The moment you get punched in the face you'll realize you're wrong.
I mean, yeah, he could do that and I'll probably have to submit to him. I'm saying he doesn't have as great of control over his men as he does over his own body, because his soldiers are still guided by their own choices. I'm not sure if it's even egoism to state that. I wouldn't really call myself an egoist either. I still think it's important to be independent and self reliant but I acknowledge the importance of collective unity and support. A single person can only do so much after all.
By that standard I also own many other things...
When it comes to objects, I think it is important to utilize it, but it's fickle. Money can become useless the next day, your machine might become broken, your house might burn down, all very well could be outside your control for a myriad of reasons. When it comes to people, it is also important to be charming and learn the art of socializing, but I also believe are just as, if not more capricious. Play the game, but remember the risks and limits.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Money can become useless the next day, your machine might become broken, your house might burn down, all very well could be outside your control for a myriad of reasons.
And you might die of an Aneurysm in the next 5 minutes or are crushed by a car tomorrow.
I see no distinction.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Well, you're not wrong, but outside of that, you still have great control over yourself. You alone can choose what you can do. We may be the subject to fate but we still choose how act towards it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I also have great control over my pen.
You are right that humans posess tge ability to control themselves, but I don't see how that means that they own only themselves.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You don't live in reality, just a world of pure abstractions. You will wake up, you will force feed, you will shit, you will drive to work, you will drive back home and post here, and you will do it all over again. If people had a "choice" then they would collectively wake up and realize how fricking absurd their entire World is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That is true, I'm at the mercy of the world, but that doesn't mean I still can't choose how to do with it. Sure, there'll be mean people, there'll be bad things, and all the mundane difficulties, all of which is mostly outside my control, but I can strive to do better. I may not be able to do much and my impact probably won't be great, but it's still my choice and knowing I did all I could is enough to satisfy me.
I also have great control over my pen.
You are right that humans posess tge ability to control themselves, but I don't see how that means that they own only themselves.
I think since you can never really know what the other person is thinking and you can't really control their minds, you only really have yourself to truly control with clear certainty. You can still be very charming or intimidating, or have a lot of money and you optimize it to the best of your abilities, but in the end of the day, it's still up for the other person to choose how they react to that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Frick you, pussy.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He's the one talking about a constructive and healthy way to perceive oneself. What alternative do you suggest that doesn't involve self-deprecation and depression? Because if your alternative does, it's pretty worthless, no matter how "true" it is.
>A next-of-kin can protest a potential autopsy and that protest will be considered by the medicolegal office of local jurisdiction. In some cases, the examining pathologist will be able to obtain all the information needed without an internal examination.
In other cases, the autopsy must proceed and will do so, unless blocked by a court order. Therefore, if this ever becomes a consideration, immediately contact an attorney.
https://washingtonforensicsservices.com/can-an-autopsy-be-denied/
Your body belongs to the government and its actions are subject to its laws. Freedom of thought is pretty much the only freedom.
You don't really own your body though. S much happens inside it that is outside of our control and will; we lose parts of it through life and can't do anything about it
The reading of Rabelais is not easy to everyone, and perhaps to those for whom it is least easy, he would be most medicinal... He is the sanest of all the great writers; perhaps the only sane one. What he has the power of communicating to us is a renewal of that physiological energy, which alone makes it possible to enjoy this monstrous world. Other writers interpret things, or warn us against things. Rabelais takes us by the hand, shows us the cup of life, deep as eternity, and bids us drink and be satisfied.
Those who suffer most from Rabelais' manner of treating sex are the incurably vicious. The really evil libidinous people, that is to say the spiteful, the mean, the base and inhuman, fly from his presence, and for the obvious reason that he makes sex-pleasure so generous... so natural, so legitimate, that their dark morbid perverted natures can get no more joy out of it. Their lust, their lechery, is a cold dead Saurian thing, a thing with the gravity of a slow-worm—and when this great laughing and generous sage comes forth into the sunshine with his noble companies of amorous and happy people, these Shadow-lovers, these Lent-lovers, these Fleshly Sentimentalists, writhe in shame, and seek refuge in a deeper darkness. How strained and inhuman, too; and one might add, how mad and irrelevant—that high, cold, disdainful translunar scorn with which the "moral-immoralism" of Nietzsche scourges our poor flesh and blood. One turns with relief to Zarathustra after associating with pious people. But, after Rabelais, even that terrific psychologist seems contorted and thin.
It is impossible not to be struck by the difference between the Rabelaisian tone in regard to erotic and excremental matters and the kind of outspokenness of our own day. With Mr. James Joyce, for example, the urge underlying his obscenities is a savage, almost pathological attraction-repulsion; whereas with Rabelais "these primordials" simply fall into their places like splendid sacraments, essential parts of his huge gala song.
His broad, free, humorous treatment of "country matters" has done us service. It has cleared the air of much that is hypocritical and unseemly, and has been a justification for many sincere people who have wished to approach such subjects in a natural way. It should be clearly understood that Rabelais never wrote a single page that is pornographic. In fact he is the great purifier. He lets fresh air into the unhealthy closets of human society, and his laughter, like sunshine, causes wormwood and pungent camomile to grow out of the very middens of the world. Concealed drains are dangerous, those open to the air harmless. Rabelais follows the aristocratic tradition of natural refinement.
Locke's Second Treatise of Government
underrated
locke thinks we own more than our bodies
You don't even own that. God does. You're merely the caretaker of it.
Proof?
Right here
You know that certificate that proves you were born? Its actually a birthing certificate that proves the vessel of your body is the property of your government the potential value of which has been borrowed against from the Rothschild's to fuel their dominance.
But there is only one thing after all anyway, so whatever, who cares. "You" don't anything or "you" owns everything or is everything. Meh, is it really all that interesting to think about?
Better question, will can the Sox beat the Yanks in the post season?
this is true as long as you get rid of the specific schizo details. capitalism borrows from the future, so it requires infinite growth, infinite bodies, and the maintenance of a "spook" social contract to keep those bodies in line (that you were essentially coerced into agreeing with, especially since there is no longer any wilderness that you can escape to)
The Stoics, Sartre, and the specific section in the Phenomenology of Spirit where the master/slave dialectic moves over into the dialectic of stoicism.
>Phenomenology of Spirit where the master/slave dialectic moves over into the dialectic of stoicism.
Ah yes, surely Hegel will have something enlightening to say about this topic.
Oh wait, it's just 30 pages of barely intelligible gibberish which doesn't engage with any of the actual arguments in Stoicism.
>>The Stoics
they say the opposite
>The Stoics
Dumbass pseud
i get the feeling you don't read
Sun and Steel is close.
I can never have bodily autonomy while Texas women can't commit infanticide.
Infanticide, kek. This isn't Fox news, you rightoids don't have to pretend to give a shit about infants here.
Infanticide is infanticide whether or not anyone actually cares.
No one has to pretend they don't want to strangulate your pencil neck, either.
t.
i like how they have a shitfit over abortion but then the "right to life" disappears as soon as we're talking about poor or disabled people
>then the "right to life" disappears as soon as we're talking about poor or disabled people
What the frick are you talking about, schizo? The strawmen in your head have got to the point of complete utter nonsense.
Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe. Best enjoyed while drinking whole milk straight from a gallon jug.
Hell yeah. I read it when I was 13 and it led to the most empowering years of my life. Went from WoW addicted chubby nerd in 8th grade to varsity wrestler and heavy lifter by my senior year of high school. Nothing but hard work and autism.
>autism
Why do you overuse this word? You specifically. I can just tell. Is it a form of ironic self-deprecation or what?
>identifying with a mutable corporeality
>identifying with death
I want to have sex
I would venture to say that we don't even own that in the traditional sense. Rather we're in a mutually beneficent relationship with our bodies. We'll die if it dies, it'll die if we die. We work with our bodies until one of us gives out.
The United States Supreme Court does not explore this thought for women seeking abortions btw
Good.
Your rights end where someone else's begin, chud
*aborts someone else's life*
Frick you fricking troony freak
>heelstriking
>if i find fulfillment in stuff that isnt hurting anyone, then theres no issue with it.
kek, people who think like this are guaranteed to be risk averse giga pussies irl.
Everything enjoyable either hurts someone somehow or is a waste of time that could be better spent helping people. Who cares? God helps those who help themselves. I just want to try and minimise how much of an arsehole I am.
It's slave morality and subsuming will to power through guilt inherited from their parents and their parents before them.
>God helps those who help themselves.
pelagianism is the most refuted heresy in history by council numbers
How is that pelagianism?
Most people have no control over their base human desires, so they will disagree with the statement. Me on the other hand? I have transcended such trivialities. The phrase is an interesting way to gauge where people are at in terms of their personal freedoms.
>The sensible body of nature is far removed from essential generation. One can be dissolved, but the other is indissoluble; one is mortal, the other immortal. Do you not know that you have been born a god and a child of the one, as I, too, have?
>>the only thing we own is our bodies
Sounds like cope for people with zero power to me.
I think it's mostly true. Outside of defects and the like, our bodies are mostly up to us. We can't really control most things because it's inherently outside of our control, like trying to make sure people don't fall in a pot hole or whatever. You can put up signs, but ultimately, it's up to the person to fall in the hole or not. Even those with supposed power, like prime ministers, CEOs, dictators, HR ladies can only influence so much.
>We can't really control most things
You can not control most of your body either.
Not literally, no, but we nourish and nurture it the best of our abilities. We can smoke till our lungs give out and chop off a hand. You can dye your hair. It's not just the one thing you truly have control over, but it's also mostly up to you too. Nobody else can force you to take care of it.
By that standard I also own many other things...
You're an autist and egoism isn't valid ontology. How can you say a King with an army at his beck and call isn't more powerful than you when he can easily coerce you and a hundred others with threats of state violence? The moment you get punched in the face you'll realize you're wrong.
I mean, yeah, he could do that and I'll probably have to submit to him. I'm saying he doesn't have as great of control over his men as he does over his own body, because his soldiers are still guided by their own choices. I'm not sure if it's even egoism to state that. I wouldn't really call myself an egoist either. I still think it's important to be independent and self reliant but I acknowledge the importance of collective unity and support. A single person can only do so much after all.
When it comes to objects, I think it is important to utilize it, but it's fickle. Money can become useless the next day, your machine might become broken, your house might burn down, all very well could be outside your control for a myriad of reasons. When it comes to people, it is also important to be charming and learn the art of socializing, but I also believe are just as, if not more capricious. Play the game, but remember the risks and limits.
>Money can become useless the next day, your machine might become broken, your house might burn down, all very well could be outside your control for a myriad of reasons.
And you might die of an Aneurysm in the next 5 minutes or are crushed by a car tomorrow.
I see no distinction.
Well, you're not wrong, but outside of that, you still have great control over yourself. You alone can choose what you can do. We may be the subject to fate but we still choose how act towards it.
I also have great control over my pen.
You are right that humans posess tge ability to control themselves, but I don't see how that means that they own only themselves.
You don't live in reality, just a world of pure abstractions. You will wake up, you will force feed, you will shit, you will drive to work, you will drive back home and post here, and you will do it all over again. If people had a "choice" then they would collectively wake up and realize how fricking absurd their entire World is.
That is true, I'm at the mercy of the world, but that doesn't mean I still can't choose how to do with it. Sure, there'll be mean people, there'll be bad things, and all the mundane difficulties, all of which is mostly outside my control, but I can strive to do better. I may not be able to do much and my impact probably won't be great, but it's still my choice and knowing I did all I could is enough to satisfy me.
I think since you can never really know what the other person is thinking and you can't really control their minds, you only really have yourself to truly control with clear certainty. You can still be very charming or intimidating, or have a lot of money and you optimize it to the best of your abilities, but in the end of the day, it's still up for the other person to choose how they react to that.
Frick you, pussy.
He's the one talking about a constructive and healthy way to perceive oneself. What alternative do you suggest that doesn't involve self-deprecation and depression? Because if your alternative does, it's pretty worthless, no matter how "true" it is.
I do not feel like I own my body.
>What are some books that explore this thought?
Locke's Second Treatise of Government
frick you troony freak
Alfred Janny
If I own it why can't I inject steroids into it without threat of law?
Your body is a fundamental component of your being, how could you possibly "own" it?
>A next-of-kin can protest a potential autopsy and that protest will be considered by the medicolegal office of local jurisdiction. In some cases, the examining pathologist will be able to obtain all the information needed without an internal examination.
In other cases, the autopsy must proceed and will do so, unless blocked by a court order. Therefore, if this ever becomes a consideration, immediately contact an attorney.
https://washingtonforensicsservices.com/can-an-autopsy-be-denied/
Your body belongs to the government and its actions are subject to its laws. Freedom of thought is pretty much the only freedom.
You don't really own your body though. S much happens inside it that is outside of our control and will; we lose parts of it through life and can't do anything about it
DESYNCED
CS:GO
Spanned
Why?
Loopline
Iron truss
Nice graffitti
Gargantua and Pantagruel
The reading of Rabelais is not easy to everyone, and perhaps to those for whom it is least easy, he would be most medicinal... He is the sanest of all the great writers; perhaps the only sane one. What he has the power of communicating to us is a renewal of that physiological energy, which alone makes it possible to enjoy this monstrous world. Other writers interpret things, or warn us against things. Rabelais takes us by the hand, shows us the cup of life, deep as eternity, and bids us drink and be satisfied.
Those who suffer most from Rabelais' manner of treating sex are the incurably vicious. The really evil libidinous people, that is to say the spiteful, the mean, the base and inhuman, fly from his presence, and for the obvious reason that he makes sex-pleasure so generous... so natural, so legitimate, that their dark morbid perverted natures can get no more joy out of it. Their lust, their lechery, is a cold dead Saurian thing, a thing with the gravity of a slow-worm—and when this great laughing and generous sage comes forth into the sunshine with his noble companies of amorous and happy people, these Shadow-lovers, these Lent-lovers, these Fleshly Sentimentalists, writhe in shame, and seek refuge in a deeper darkness. How strained and inhuman, too; and one might add, how mad and irrelevant—that high, cold, disdainful translunar scorn with which the "moral-immoralism" of Nietzsche scourges our poor flesh and blood. One turns with relief to Zarathustra after associating with pious people. But, after Rabelais, even that terrific psychologist seems contorted and thin.
It is impossible not to be struck by the difference between the Rabelaisian tone in regard to erotic and excremental matters and the kind of outspokenness of our own day. With Mr. James Joyce, for example, the urge underlying his obscenities is a savage, almost pathological attraction-repulsion; whereas with Rabelais "these primordials" simply fall into their places like splendid sacraments, essential parts of his huge gala song.
His broad, free, humorous treatment of "country matters" has done us service. It has cleared the air of much that is hypocritical and unseemly, and has been a justification for many sincere people who have wished to approach such subjects in a natural way. It should be clearly understood that Rabelais never wrote a single page that is pornographic. In fact he is the great purifier. He lets fresh air into the unhealthy closets of human society, and his laughter, like sunshine, causes wormwood and pungent camomile to grow out of the very middens of the world. Concealed drains are dangerous, those open to the air harmless. Rabelais follows the aristocratic tradition of natural refinement.
SPINOZA - ETHICA
adorable
troony art style