YOU got?... if you can summarize all your thoughts in two words which other people have thought of in the first place...its not YOUR philosphy if you're an "anarchist" do you make your own rules and obey your own rules?...you must have a better explanation on what your beliefs are and what your actions are if your gonna say "I'm an anarchist"
Dude, you just said the barber shaves anyone who doesn't shave themselves. That means that either A) he shaves himself, or B) he's bald. (the last part was a joke) As for you being a philospher...HA. Philosphy is ancient greek for "love of wisdom" Pheilin= Love Sophia= Wisdom Pheilinsophia= philosophy :. Love of wisdom Philosophy is Ideas, Questions, subjective interpretation and theories to name a few. The word "Philosophy" doesn't actually tell you what it encompasses, really. It's so vast. You can never answer its questions. It's just too damn hard, and if you spend your life trying to find out, you'll have overlooked another philosophy of life and in turn have wasted your life looking for a truth that doesn't exist. Like Musicians are cowards said: "Life is ephemeral. Don't waste it looking up big words"
Okay, I'm a post-left anarchist, to be specific. I think that the left is completely incapable of making any change at all and that the "class-based struggle" is complete bulshit. I think that the only way to create anarchy is to focus on yourself and not society. I think that organized hierarchies are stupid, but even in anarchy, because of human nature, a "natural" hierarchy will occur anyways. So sure, I make my own rules, and follow them, as you said.
imo, anarchy is a ridiculous concept. if human nature was different than it is, and people could cooperate together without a 3rd party with power, i'd be all for it, because i hate the government, and society in general. but human nature is the way it is, and people will naturally create either a democratic or monarchaic (sp?) or tyrannic community when forced to survive, so anarchy is pretty much impossible. if there were no rules or values enforced, we'd all be at each other's throats. not like we aren't anyway, but we would be more than we are right now. *didn't see your post, you said pretty much what i said in like 1 sentence.
I feel the secret to life is within the living aspect of life...consider how a tree grows...it doesn't set a path for itself or it's growth,it just grows...as the tree matures to the point of death .the once fleck of pollen that evolved is now a log floating down the river...the log doesn't force it's way down the river, it just floats along to the places of it's destiny... if you are patient life will take you where you're going...
(this was for the first meetermaid comment) ^yeah its true...sometimes I believe "damn this world is fucked up" but at the same time...how could it be better?? I think as human beings we've done some pretty amazing shit and we've gone wherever our nature has taken us... how could've we gone where we didn't want to go?...that would just be contradictory to ourselves...BUT I believe that we can see the same problems we find in ourselves-- in the whole world(doubt, questioning, insality!, ups and downs, etc.) and sometimes WE do not go where we would like to go... SO... Have we as human beings gone and are in the direction in which we would have liked to go or be in or are we just one bipolar society?...which I think is the reason for the quote "history repeats itself"...if you think about it..its like a mental disease..
What you say can techincally be true, but then think. Are you not being stereotypical yourself? By categorizing the categories of social hierarchy, you assume that each entity relies on another's thoughts and the period of their time. Are they, assuming "they" are each a thinking humane being, not "just being" themselves by choosing how to dress? Of course they are being influenced, but everything in life is influenced by something else. We all rely on something to continue our existence, i.e: the food chain. The realist's view is that we MUST rely on the external to find the internal happiness. And by this I encompass every thing (yes that is deliberately 2 words). For example: I want to be happy (most people want to), so what do I do? I live, I breathe so I can live although done subconsciously and mechanically without thought. I eat so I have the energy to breathe, and participate in anything that requires energy (so from sports, down to just picking up your girlfriend and getting it on). I rely on other people and by that, it is meant their reactions to my actions. If I tell a joke, and they don't laugh, that's not going to make me happy, because I haven't satisfied their taste of humor or what-have-you. Still with me? Good. Necessities like food and clothing ARE material. So semi-conclusively, we can now accept that we rely on teh external to gain internal happiness. This example does indeed branch onwards, and may forever. This is why I stop here. Now don't get me wrong, I agree that to "just be" it is essential to being your true self, but you are never, ever, ever, going to make a choice completely on your own without influence of someone or soemthing else. I believe this is why, although we do continue (for example) fashion trends that have been started way back when, that although we dress like hippies, rastas, gangsters, goths, punks, etc. the style is constantly evolving. (Which I could elaborate more on but let's keept on topic shall we?) "salvation in your opinion" That is just that, an opinion. I'm not trying to diss you or anything but that is all it is, and it doesn't matter the least. What does, is that you've influenced someone reading your post. They might think upon it, contemplate what you have contemplated and come to your same conclusion, or come to your same conclusion with variants. I'm trying not to lose my train of thought but I've typed a lot already. I hope this is a smart response. I have digested what you wrote and agree as well as disagree with some of your theories.
in the like directional sense..it differs for each person i think, because in 1 way we've done some unthinkable shit; we have all this technology and all this knowledge, but what have we done with it? set foot on the moon. making food that's prepared in 1 and a half minutes. ok. in the 1600s this would've been totally amazing. i know i'm jaded just because i'm growing up in this world where nothing is impossible, but really, we really haven't done all that much that's important and great for OURSELVES as human beings, besides medical improvements. (i have like 8 different thoughts going on at the same time as always so bear with me) and here we go: is knowledge really power? we know all this shit about our bodies and the earth, and a great number of people are trying to use that knowledge to save our world that we've fucked up so badly in the physical sense, but the majority of us aren't doing fuckall, even though we KNOW what is happening and what will happen to us, because we're what i call the 'fastfood generation' (give me convinience or give me death, thank you, jello biafra.), we want everything and we want it now, regardless of the consequences. (responding to fula)
OH SHIT!!! you know I was actually thinking of creating a thread exactly like this... great idea tone!! hmm so where do we start? Allow myself to introduce myself? MUSASHI> your philosophy is that of experience yet it would seem to indicate you are not the master and director of your experiences. When one of human nature's gifts is choice Fula> your first post=very cool thought process I gotta tell my boy Rasputin about this thread!! Food for thought...Evolution vs. Intelligent Design oh and anarchy...if you internalize it then its pointless because you watch others suffer while you relax? when anarchy inherently means interaction with society, the system, government and so on
What you have to think of, though, is how little success anarchy has had through "conventional" and boring methods such as marches, hand held signs, and gatherings. These are all expected and are predictable. They are now a part of the status quo. Everyone knows that post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control.
What you have to think of, though, is how little success anarchy has had through "conventional" and boring methods such as marches, hand held signs, and gatherings. These are all expected and are predictable. They are now a part of the status quo. Everyone knows that post-Marxist jargon is off-putting because it really is a language of mere academic dispute, not a weapon capable of undermining systems of control. [/b][/quote] right, right... society (government) has dealt with and plans for those means and even more extreme measures and when you openly oppose the status quo society knows right where you stand thus banding together against their enemy. undermining the system has to bbe far more tactful and slick than throwing bricks
nuff said with the anarchy, time for a game! This is a Categorical Syllogism. All professors of Philosophy are educated people, All professors of Philosophy are respected members of society, Therefore all respected members of society are educated people. Is this a VALID or an INVALID syllogism?
undermining the system has to bbe far more tactful and slick than throwing bricks [/b][/quote] Of course.
invalid. proffesors of philosophy only represent a fraction of respected members of society. society values much more than educated people
invalid beacuse Proffesors of Philosophy arent the only ones who are respected, they are just one of the many people who are respected