It convinced me to the idea that every human relation is a transaction, be it money, shelter, security, entertainment, care, etc. There is nothing special about humans, we are all even less than machines
nta
but i knew a man who took care of his cripple wife for 15 years until his death. i feel cruel for reducing that to "mere transaction". what was that anon?
12 months ago
Anonymous
Don't know his story, so can't say correctly for sure, but he might be taking care of her because of love which she gave him earlier and/or because he feels virtuous for taking care of her and/or he feels indebted to her and wants to pay it through these actions, so it's still a transaction
Two Arms and a Head: The Death of Paraplegic Philosopher - Clayton Atreus. This is not mediocre suicide note. Not only he explained how he got the incident, but he also had capability to describe how people treated him before and after the incident that left him physically crippled, he wrote his perspectives toward his terrible condition from philosophical, biological, psychological, and political frameworks.
>Two Arms and a Head: The Death of Paraplegic Philosopher - Clayton Atreu
God this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. I read it about 6 years ago and it's really stuck with me. Thanks for writing your own thoughts!
The thing that stuck with me about his writing was that he said he wasn't interested in taking medicine to make him happier if he is only suicidal because of depression; he said that anyone who could be happy in his condition is not someone he sees himself as being continuous of consciousness with and would be the same as him killing himself anyway.
I always wondered, if you believe that taking antidepressants is "killing" you who would be unhappy paraplegic and replacing yourself with someone who is happy, why, when faced with the choices of his two "suicides", he chose the type of suicide that would give his family and friends a traumatic loss, with all the "could-I-have-said-something" stuff that comes with it. Why not choose the type of suicide that gave his family and friends a facsimile of himself, so they would be happy?
I understand that such decisions aren't always rational, and this to me seemed the most irrational part of it, for someone who wrote at such length and so eloquently at how rational / philosophical / logical / etc. he was.
This ranks up there imo. Schopenhauer gives the most cogent definition of logic and its purpose I've come across >[Logic] is the general knowledge of the mode of procedure of the reason expressed in the form of rules. It is reached by the introspection of reason, and by abstraction from all content. But this mode of procedure is necessary and essential to reason, so that it will never depart from it if left to itself. It is, therefore, easier and surer to let it proceed itself according to its nature in each particular case, than to present to it the knowledge abstracted from this procedure in the form of a foreign and externally given law. It is easier, because, while in the case of all other sciences, the general rule is more within our reach than the investigation of the particular case taken by itself; with the use of reason, on the contrary, its necessary procedure in a given case is always more within our reach than the general rule abstracted from it; for that which thinks in us is reason itself.
Logic is, therefore, without practical utility; but it must nevertheless be retained, because it has philosophical interest as the special knowledge of the organisation and action of reason. It is rightly regarded as a definite, self-subsisting, self-contained, complete, and thoroughly safe discipline; to be treated scientifically for itself alone and independently of everything else, and therefore to be studied at the universities. But it has its real value, in relation to philosophy as a whole, in the inquiry into the nature of knowledge, and indeed of [rational and abstract knowledge. Therefore the exposition of logic should not have so much the form of a practical science, should not contain merely naked arbitrary rules for the correct formation of the judgment, the syllogism, but should rather be directed to the knowledge of the nature of reason and the concept, and to the detailed investigation of the principle of sufficient reason of knowing. For logic is only a paraphrase of this principle, and, more exactly, only of that exemplification of it in which the ground that gives truth to the judgment is neither empirical nor metaphysical, but logical or metalogical. Besides the principle of sufficient reason of knowing, it is necessary to take account of the three remaining fundamental laws of thought, or judgments of metalogical truth, so nearly related to it; and out of these the whole science of reason grows. The nature of thought proper, that is to say, of the judgment and the syllogism, must be exhibited in the combination of the spheres of concepts, according to the analogy of the special schema, in the way shown above; and from all this the rules of the judgment and the syllogism are to be deduced by construction. The only practical use we can make of logic is in a debate, when we can convict our antagonist of his intentional fallacies, rather than of his actual mistakes, by giving them their technical names.
Jesus Christ that has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Logic is about the only part of philosophy anyone can agree to and has any lasting value. If you can doubt syllogisms(or first-order predicate logic now) you have nothing of value to say.
He explained what its value is, which is to explicate the self-consistency of reason within reason. The value of logic is to describe the inner structure of reason. It doesn't say anything about the world beyond.
My diary tbh
metamorphosis by kafka
Why?
It convinced me to the idea that every human relation is a transaction, be it money, shelter, security, entertainment, care, etc. There is nothing special about humans, we are all even less than machines
nta
but i knew a man who took care of his cripple wife for 15 years until his death. i feel cruel for reducing that to "mere transaction". what was that anon?
Don't know his story, so can't say correctly for sure, but he might be taking care of her because of love which she gave him earlier and/or because he feels virtuous for taking care of her and/or he feels indebted to her and wants to pay it through these actions, so it's still a transaction
Diogenes the Cynic: Sayings and Anecdotes
Two Arms and a Head: The Death of Paraplegic Philosopher - Clayton Atreus. This is not mediocre suicide note. Not only he explained how he got the incident, but he also had capability to describe how people treated him before and after the incident that left him physically crippled, he wrote his perspectives toward his terrible condition from philosophical, biological, psychological, and political frameworks.
Disturbing, and haunting but really insightful.
Proses : 10/10
Substance : 10/10.
I have heard that he was a chad. What happened after the accident?
>Two Arms and a Head: The Death of Paraplegic Philosopher - Clayton Atreu
God this is one of the most disturbing things I've read. I read it about 6 years ago and it's really stuck with me. Thanks for writing your own thoughts!
The thing that stuck with me about his writing was that he said he wasn't interested in taking medicine to make him happier if he is only suicidal because of depression; he said that anyone who could be happy in his condition is not someone he sees himself as being continuous of consciousness with and would be the same as him killing himself anyway.
I always wondered, if you believe that taking antidepressants is "killing" you who would be unhappy paraplegic and replacing yourself with someone who is happy, why, when faced with the choices of his two "suicides", he chose the type of suicide that would give his family and friends a traumatic loss, with all the "could-I-have-said-something" stuff that comes with it. Why not choose the type of suicide that gave his family and friends a facsimile of himself, so they would be happy?
I understand that such decisions aren't always rational, and this to me seemed the most irrational part of it, for someone who wrote at such length and so eloquently at how rational / philosophical / logical / etc. he was.
The Transcendental Aesthetic
This ranks up there imo. Schopenhauer gives the most cogent definition of logic and its purpose I've come across
>[Logic] is the general knowledge of the mode of procedure of the reason expressed in the form of rules. It is reached by the introspection of reason, and by abstraction from all content. But this mode of procedure is necessary and essential to reason, so that it will never depart from it if left to itself. It is, therefore, easier and surer to let it proceed itself according to its nature in each particular case, than to present to it the knowledge abstracted from this procedure in the form of a foreign and externally given law. It is easier, because, while in the case of all other sciences, the general rule is more within our reach than the investigation of the particular case taken by itself; with the use of reason, on the contrary, its necessary procedure in a given case is always more within our reach than the general rule abstracted from it; for that which thinks in us is reason itself.
Logic is, therefore, without practical utility; but it must nevertheless be retained, because it has philosophical interest as the special knowledge of the organisation and action of reason. It is rightly regarded as a definite, self-subsisting, self-contained, complete, and thoroughly safe discipline; to be treated scientifically for itself alone and independently of everything else, and therefore to be studied at the universities. But it has its real value, in relation to philosophy as a whole, in the inquiry into the nature of knowledge, and indeed of [rational and abstract knowledge. Therefore the exposition of logic should not have so much the form of a practical science, should not contain merely naked arbitrary rules for the correct formation of the judgment, the syllogism, but should rather be directed to the knowledge of the nature of reason and the concept, and to the detailed investigation of the principle of sufficient reason of knowing. For logic is only a paraphrase of this principle, and, more exactly, only of that exemplification of it in which the ground that gives truth to the judgment is neither empirical nor metaphysical, but logical or metalogical. Besides the principle of sufficient reason of knowing, it is necessary to take account of the three remaining fundamental laws of thought, or judgments of metalogical truth, so nearly related to it; and out of these the whole science of reason grows. The nature of thought proper, that is to say, of the judgment and the syllogism, must be exhibited in the combination of the spheres of concepts, according to the analogy of the special schema, in the way shown above; and from all this the rules of the judgment and the syllogism are to be deduced by construction. The only practical use we can make of logic is in a debate, when we can convict our antagonist of his intentional fallacies, rather than of his actual mistakes, by giving them their technical names.
Jesus Christ that has got to be one of the dumbest things I've ever seen. Logic is about the only part of philosophy anyone can agree to and has any lasting value. If you can doubt syllogisms(or first-order predicate logic now) you have nothing of value to say.
He explained what its value is, which is to explicate the self-consistency of reason within reason. The value of logic is to describe the inner structure of reason. It doesn't say anything about the world beyond.
stoner, that bit when he destroys the fricker in an exam, i think it was witty
The Decline of the West
or perhaps How It Is
On the Origin of Species, easily
Still breaks christcucks brains 200 years later
The Phantom Tollbooth
The Naked Ape.