Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page hmm .. Maybe Nietzsche on was on to something..
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-05   #1
MikeyWonder
Face in the Mist
 
MikeyWonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13
MikeyWonder is on a distinguished road
Credits: 1,841
hmm .. Maybe Nietzsche on was on to something..

However , a lot of Christian fundamentalists would certainly disagree ... the argument really is why do we look to 'outside sources' for moral guidelines ..now we can go deep in the human psyche to find the answer , but for now id like to refrain from doing so ... but I was just wondering if anybody would like to elaborate on Nietzsche's ideals .. without bias and with logical reasoning of course ...



"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life." - Nietzsche

Maybe he was just a frickin nutcase ...who knows
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #2
gArGOyLe^^
The ModFather
 
gArGOyLe^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: ?>
Posts: 8,301
gArGOyLe^^ will become famous soon enough
Credits: 280,161
Quote:
When we hear the ancient bells growling on a Sunday morning we ask ourselves: Is it really possible! This, for a jew, crucified two thousand years ago, who said he was God's son? The proof of such a claim is lacking. Certainly the Christian religion is an antiquity projected into our times from remote prehistory; and the fact that the claim is believed - whereas one is otherwise so strict in examining pretensions - is perhaps the most ancient piece of this heritage. A god who begets children with a mortal woman; a sage who bids men work no more, have no more courts, but look for the signs of the impending end of the world; a justice that accepts the innocent as a vicarious sacrifice; someone who orders his disciples to drink his blood; prayers for miraculous interventions; sins perpetrated against a god, atoned for by a god; fear of a beyond to which death is the portal; the form of the cross as a symbol in a time that no longer knows the function and ignominy of the cross -- how ghoulishly all this touches us, as if from the tomb of a primeval past! Can one believe that such things are still believed?
from Nietzsche's Human, all too Human
I don't believe he was a complete nutcase. He made some pretty accurate observations in my opinion. Please feel free to go deep in the human psyche for the answer . I'm interested in reading what you have to say.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #3
ShotDownStar
roar indeed
 
ShotDownStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Virgin-eye-ay
Posts: 8,639
ShotDownStar will become famous soon enough
Credits: 169,349
He said quite a few insightful things, but most of it was just pure horse shit.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #4
gArGOyLe^^
The ModFather
 
gArGOyLe^^'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: ?>
Posts: 8,301
gArGOyLe^^ will become famous soon enough
Credits: 280,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShotDownStar
He said quite a few insightful things, but most of it was just pure horse shit.
Examples of the horseshit please
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #5
ShotDownStar
roar indeed
 
ShotDownStar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Virgin-eye-ay
Posts: 8,639
ShotDownStar will become famous soon enough
Credits: 169,349
Fuck, you mean i have to go digging around the internet to prove my opinion? what do you think this is, debate or something?

let me get back to you on that one.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #6
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
Nietzsche was god....so to say

the man was a genius.....his earlier work is a little easier to understand, his latter years is when he got crazy....but overall, he had the right ideas about philosophy and life, or rather a very justified theory: morals don't exist, or rather shouldn't; man is but a caged animal (said cage being society); BEING/SELF is crucial; the mind can no longer grow since man has grown content; God is dead, or never existed......

anywho, go Nietzsche.....
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-05   #7
MikeyWonder
Face in the Mist
 
MikeyWonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13
MikeyWonder is on a distinguished road
Credits: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by gArGOyLe^^
I don't believe he was a complete nutcase. He made some pretty accurate observations in my opinion. Please feel free to go deep in the human psyche for the answer . I'm interested in reading what you have to say.
Two words ..... downward causation ..
__________________
"What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented!" - Nietzsche
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #8
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
explain
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #9
Quiet.....
serotonin sage
 
Quiet.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,332
Quiet..... is on a distinguished road
Credits: 57,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six
Nietzsche was god....so to say

the man was a genius.....his earlier work is a little easier to understand, his latter years is when he got crazy....but overall, he had the right ideas about philosophy and life, or rather a very justified theory: morals don't exist, or rather shouldn't; man is but a caged animal (said cage being society); BEING/SELF is crucial; the mind can no longer grow since man has grown content; God is dead, or never existed......

anywho, go Nietzsche.....
Nietzsche and morals: he attacks Christian fundamentalists only, did he not? If morals didn't exist, we would lose our ability to compare and contrast what is right and wrong in our actions. Yes, yes, based on a solid fundamentalist theory which Christianity has been accused of exploiting and etc, etc.. fine.

It's too easy to lay down some wonderful ideology of "we would be such free beings if we had no restrictive morals holding us back, etc, etc"..

I'm no expert on Nietzsche, but I don't think morals should be abolished from our state of mind. I think that's a radicalist statement and ultimately, just another dominant, elitist view.....there are too many factors (and other philosophies from different lands to consider)..

1. God is dead.
2. Woman was God's second mistake.

Yeah, makes sense and it instills a sense of power that otherwise does not exist in us. It inspires a sense of freedom in us. A freedom free from political rhetoric, the churches damnation and gives us a seemingly strong sense of individualism...but like any philosophy or religion or pattern of thought, it's still deseminated in a comparitave view. A "right" and "wrong" method of thinking.

Explain to me our pattern of thought free of these otherwise caged thoughts. Is it possible to even do so since even Nietzsche's philosophy was formulated from a caged perspective? Caged thoughts grappling for "new ideas" can only (by logic) acquire new ideas outside the cage. But, when are we truly free then? Does that mean we are only expanding the size of our cage?

"Free your mind" you might say. Towards Enlightenment..? Bear in mind that there are multiple forms of enlightenment theory and it'd do you well to chuckle that the Political Theories of Enlightenment aimed to secularize even these thoughts.

What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated than merely the sphere of philosophy can handle. You can break down the arguements but you won't find a real answer. Just another fragment of the Truth...which is relative to your perception in any case.
__________________
i believe in practicing compassion.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #10
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
w3rd...

y'know, i might be mistaken, since it's been awhile since i read up on ole' Nietzsche, but i thought his views on morality (which is perception anyway) wasn't so much a way to tell right from wrong, but a way to seperate man from animal....but all we did was "cage" the animal......we are less natural in this state.....

but anywho, good argument there...

but, what i took from Nietzsche was his more existential views on life.....i am me, i'm what i can prove exists (not 100% of course) and what is me, should be, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....now, if me is the animal, then why should i be caged? why should i allow a sense of "right" and "wrong" limit me.....

but again, it all boils down to perception....and might i add, you're really into "perception" these days......
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #11
Quiet.....
serotonin sage
 
Quiet.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,332
Quiet..... is on a distinguished road
Credits: 57,703
yeah, i'm all about "perception is all there is"...and we're always in constant change and collision with our perceptions.. old ones and new ones and tra la la...

(and yes, I'm even worse off than you on my up-to-date knowledge on Nietzsche..this is all just from the top of my head)..

I think in a lot of ways, Nietzsche is most useful in the time that he lived and what he stood against. I completely agree with "we should not be caged" but to what extent..? It's almost safe to say (based on the mutual agreement here) that people without morals (not boundaries, but morals) are those that cause pain to themselves and to others at some given point...all for the desire (desire is such a sin! a helpless one at that..) to vainly believe that ideologies can set us free.

On another note, I don't think I could sit through a Philosophy of Ethics class (and get a good grade) because of stuff like this. Arguements about ethics always felt petty and off-topic to me (at least at my university, which I'm assuming is close enough to the talk that gets thrown around everywhere else)...

Anyway, anyone else have a different thought to add?
__________________
i believe in practicing compassion.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #12
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
what, you don't wanna hear my thoughts?

first off, Nietzsche will go down as one of the greatest philosophers/thinkers of all time.....his philosophy wasn't for a set time or what he stood against, they were just his thoughts....and philosophy is indebted to him for it......in many aspects, Nietzsche's philosophy is more popular than classic philosophy....

anywho, people with morals cause pain just the same as people without morals, both with ideological intent....

and ethics....well, ethics is stupid.....is abortion wrong? who cares! what one should be asking is, what is wrong, and why do we recognize it?

that was Nietzsche's quest.....well, one of 'em.....and it was his conclusion (so i believe) that it was just a way to seperate man from animal....it isn't set in stone......hundred years ago, it was okay to "string up" a bad guy (vigilante justice); today, vigilante justice is wrong!......50 yrs ago it was okay to call all black people "niggers" and consider them "worthless nigger shit"; today, not so much....

and so this in a sense is like perception....which, you admit is ever changing.....so, if perception is ever changing (and in a sense, wrong, as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid), then why even need it in the first place?

the same with morality....if it is subject to change, and brings about change, then how much validity does it truly have when regarding "the truth"?
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #13
Quiet.....
serotonin sage
 
Quiet.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,332
Quiet..... is on a distinguished road
Credits: 57,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six
and so this in a sense is like perception....which, you admit is ever changing.....so, if perception is ever changing (and in a sense, wrong, as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid), then why even need it in the first place?

the same with morality....if it is subject to change, and brings about change, then how much validity does it truly have when regarding "the truth"?
ooo, this will be fun to discuss. but i'm beat. i'll answer tomorrow..

Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six
is abortion wrong? who cares!
this one's just funny because you put an exclamation mark instead of a question mark. makes it double funny. hah! cough...
__________________
i believe in practicing compassion.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #14
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
yeah, well....y'know me.....always the comedian
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #15
Billy the Kidd
Self Serving Hypocrite
Admin
 
Billy the Kidd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Progressive HELL!!!
Posts: 19,438
Billy the Kidd will become famous soon enough
Credits: 418,462
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyWonder
However , a lot of Christian fundamentalists would certainly disagree ... the argument really is why do we look to 'outside sources' for moral guidelines ..now we can go deep in the human psyche to find the answer , but for now id like to refrain from doing so ... but I was just wondering if anybody would like to elaborate on Nietzsche's ideals .. without bias and with logical reasoning of course ...



"Christianity was from the beginning, essentially and fundamentally, life's nausea and disgust with life, merely concealed behind, masked by, dressed up as, faith in "another" or "better" life." - Nietzsche

Maybe he was just a frickin nutcase ...who knows
Or maybe he was on a lot of drugs and had an agenda.
__________________
Tolerance is a virtue of a dying civilzation. Aristotle
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #16
Quiet.....
serotonin sage
 
Quiet.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,332
Quiet..... is on a distinguished road
Credits: 57,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by sixxx(sic)six
and so this in a sense is like perception....which, you admit is ever changing.....so, if perception is ever changing (and in a sense, wrong, as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid), then why even need it in the first place?

the same with morality....if it is subject to change, and brings about change, then how much validity does it truly have when regarding "the truth"?
ok, my brain is a little dull since i haven't had any coffee, but i'm still going to attempt this...

First, lets break down the parts of this.

1. All perceptions are in constant change and are therefore in a sense, wrong as it is subject to change and NOT sound and valid. (I needed to type this out myself so my brain understands the framework, sorry, )

2. Validity of morals and interlocked with truth. What does this mean.

~~ ...

1.

Alright, in response to number one, why should perceptions not change, not be in constant evolution, be defined and written as a set code?

The word "moderation" springs to mind. I suppose it's an opinion of mine that "everything in moderation is fine" which allows your philosophy of aesthetics that "nothing is good, bad, beautiful, ugly, etc"..

Quote:
"I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do...The Beatles made amazing music, etc, etc...because of drugs. If you don't think drugs have done good things, go home and burn your CDs because all those artists were really fucking high on drugs" --- Bill Hicks
Conversely, the crazy crack head down the street who's annoying the fuck out of everyone is a useless member of society. The end. (I know you understand this already and agree, but I'm writing this for references' sake).

I'm shifting towards behaviorism by talking about moderation and I think it's a key aspect of understanding perception. There are certain universals behind our motives in thought and action in all societies and all cultures. Some cultures (perceptions) value materialism higher than spiritualism. But, that doesn't mean that both aspects aren't, in a sense, equally important to maintain a balance. Rather, view is as: A balance contingent upon the values of that specific perception. In other words, "balance" doesn't mean equal in weight, but the comfortable norm in which we proceed with our lives. (ie: someone who only goes to church on Sundays (spiritualism) but spends every other day of the week accumulating wealth (materialism)).

Now, the economy changes all the time. Political ideologies are constantly being remade. Our cultural reactions to this is a conflict of maintaining our sense of "Self" (as both an individual and as a member of society) and therein lies the constant change.

I'll give a seperate analogy to this: You have a relationship. It's Beautiful. Then you break up. Now, it's Ugly. Which is true? Of course, they're both true. It once was beautiful, but then things were sullied and changed and now it's ugly. If you view time as linear (Western) as opposed to cyclical (Eastern) that might have a great deal of influence on how you'll reflect on this event as well. In a nutshell (a really crappy, quick rundown): a linear perspective demands us to move on and find new paths to pave because the moment is gone and never will be again. A beginning and an end. While a cyclical perspective reminds us that this moment is a reoccuring spiral of action and we may only "move on" by expanding the distance between the cycles so that we may avoid encountering negativity of the same like again...which would eventually deal with ideas of reincarnation and stuff to where you've escaped all negativity and attain Nirvana or whatever Eastern form of heaven.

Behaviorism is what makes situations like this seem so dynamic. "True perception" (true understanding) is what makes us avoid such situations like this. That is truth (at least, that's what I'm stating right now). When you recognize an event/situation/person/whatever before "getting to know the semantic frameworks of the actual thing". Should I dub it cognitive truth? I dunno. There's no map of how to identify Truth and as human beings, we love to classify things. It gives us a sense of control but it's my opinion that it is exactly that desire to classify Truth is what prevents us from knowing Truth. Truth IS relative (unstable) but it is also contingent on our immediate surroundings which can be our every day lives (stable).

That was fucking confusing.

2.

Oh wait, I think I answered both in one.

Have at it...
__________________
i believe in practicing compassion.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #17
Magic Ninjet
Hatchet Goddess
 
Magic Ninjet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 7,102
Magic Ninjet will become famous soon enough
Credits: 141,093
This is too much for me to read right now (I'm at work) but I just want to say that I think the man was brillant. True, he was insane, and you have to filter though the rubbish - but the solid stuff is pure gold. Plus, I'm a Superman, so...
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #18
MikeyWonder
Face in the Mist
 
MikeyWonder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 13
MikeyWonder is on a distinguished road
Credits: 1,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quiet.....

Alright, in response to number one, why should perceptions not change, not be in constant evolution, be defined and written as a set code?

The word "moderation" springs to mind. I suppose it's an opinion of mine that "everything in moderation is fine" which allows your philosophy of aesthetics that "nothing is good, bad, beautiful, ugly, etc"..



Conversely, the crazy crack head down the street who's annoying the fuck out of everyone is a useless member of society. The end. (I know you understand this already and agree, but I'm writing this for references' sake).

I'm shifting towards behaviorism by talking about moderation and I think it's a key aspect of understanding perception. There are certain universals behind our motives in thought and action in all societies and all cultures. Some cultures (perceptions) value materialism higher than spiritualism. But, that doesn't mean that both aspects aren't, in a sense, equally important to maintain a balance. Rather, view is as: A balance contingent upon the values of that specific perception. In other words, "balance" doesn't mean equal in weight, but the comfortable norm in which we proceed with our lives. (ie: someone who only goes to church on Sundays (spiritualism) but spends every other day of the week accumulating wealth (materialism)).


In what context are you actually using behaviorism ? .. it is my understanding that behaviorism applies the theory that we are nothing but biological machines with no mind or soul , just organisms with brains that react to external stimuli (which is complete bullshit)... and how exactly does that tie in with morality ? .....as i was reading your reply , I think I understand where your coming from ..that perceptions of what is morally right or wrong depend on the environment in which the subject is accustomed too ..please correct me if im wrong .

As far as things being considered immorral in the modern , and moral at some other point in history ...for example : the "n" word so to speak was "ok" to say 30 years ago , however now it is considered "wrong" .... it has always been "wrong" to say that word , but up until recently was it not "socially acceptable".. ugh , gotta get back to work --will elaborate later
__________________
"What distinguishes us [scientists] from the pious and the believers is not the quality but the quantity of belief and piety; we are contented with less. But if the former should challenge us: then be contented and appear to be contented!" - Nietzsche
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-05   #19
Quiet.....
serotonin sage
 
Quiet.....'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Japan
Posts: 2,332
Quiet..... is on a distinguished road
Credits: 57,703
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyWonder
In what context are you actually using behaviorism ? .. it is my understanding that behaviorism applies the theory that we are nothing but biological machines with no mind or soul , just organisms with brains that react to external stimuli (which is complete bullshit)... and how exactly does that tie in with morality ? .....as i was reading your reply , I think I understand where your coming from ..that perceptions of what is morally right or wrong depend on the environment in which the subject is accustomed too ..please correct me if im wrong .

As far as things being considered immorral in the modern , and moral at some other point in history ...for example : the "n" word so to speak was "ok" to say 30 years ago , however now it is considered "wrong" .... it has always been "wrong" to say that word , but up until recently was it not "socially acceptable".. ugh , gotta get back to work --will elaborate later
I'll just quickly say that behaviorism isn't locked down to itself. I believe in the metaphysical aspects a lot as well. Philosophy continuously interlocks with other forms of philosophy. Most people only know the basic theoretical stuff and don't know "applied philosophy" (such as utalitarianism -- i know i spelt that wrong)...and I don't know if this is the case with you....(not that your arguements are false.. I haven't reached any conclusions about you yet)...anyway, I'll let you elaborate more before I actually respond to you...

~~~~

On another note, sixxx, if you would bring in the metaphysical side to this, it might (at first) cause debate but I think it might clear up some things as well...

(but go ahead and respond to the faults of my above post first)
__________________
i believe in practicing compassion.

Last edited by Quiet.....; 10-05-05 at 20:15.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-05   #20
sixxx(sic)six
satanic teddybear
 
sixxx(sic)six's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Under your bed with a very sharp knife...and nekkid!
Posts: 14,741
sixxx(sic)six is on a distinguished road
Credits: 395,024
hmmm.....quite an interesting reply....and indeed, it fits wonderfully in my "aesthetic" reasoning.....

i can see what you're saying "A is true while A is experienced; B is true while B is experienced" (i summed it up nicely, huh?)

but take this into account......

perception, as far as i know it (which is what little i read in a Dictionary of Philosophical terms--there was a great detailed explanation on perception) but what i got from it, is that it's flawed.....and it's one great flaw is that perception is synonymous with empiricism (and we all know how flawed that is).....

so to go back to "A is true while A is experienced; B is true while B is experienced".....well, what happened when we go back to A?

let me elaborate more "philosophically"

A is true while A is experienced....let's give an example for what A is inreference to....we'll use your example, "relationship"....HOWEVER, A isn't relationship, let's call A "courtship".....

while courting, one has many things which to experience......bliss, joy, love at it's finest moment, sex, a sense of feeling complete, yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.......

is this a relationship? does A = relationship? well, with the reasoning behind perception, this is indeed relationship.....thus, A (which is courtship) = relationship......

then you have B (and B, as you've guessed, is "breaking up" [specifically, the sole opposite of courtship).......from B you experience many things: heartache, anger, sadness, depression, loneliness, self-loathing (perhaps) and yaddah, yaddah, yaddah.....

now, does B = relationship? from the reasoning of perception, it does.....thus, B (which is breaking up) = relationship

but then you come back to A.....yet another "courtship" (most likely with another individual).....and we've come back to A = relationship....

now, granted, by my own definition behind "aestheticism" and your theory of perception, both A and B = relationship, both have merit, both are "true".....but, does not one seemingly outweigh the other? does not one seem to be more true?

now, if that example seemed to "hodgey-podgey" for you, take this into account....

PERCEPTION (empiricism) of "What is the sun?"

Perception 1: the sun is this orange circle in the sky, a God if you will, it rises everyday, it settles everyday, it gives warmth and light.....

Perception 2: the sun is a star during a stage, which is located ????? miles away, has density of blah, blah, blah, and is the center of our galaxy....

both have merit, yet one is more "logical" based on "scientific reasoning".....this is why "empiricism" was flawed......in the past, the sun was a mystical entity in the sky....today, it's a star we orbit......hell! several hundred years ago, it orbited us!

now, you have all these perceptions based around something as miniscule as the sun.....yet, one perception is far more logical than the other.......

thus, it isn't so much the "perception" that justifies the "truth" of the sun, as it is several other factors.....said factors obviously indicate that they are what justifies perception in order to justify the "truth"

thus, to sum up, perception can't justify a truth unless justified itself.....
__________________
I was masturbating
just contemplating
the color of suicide
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Is there a God? Dextris Topic Discussions 587 12-10-07 10:41
S&M Iced Goddess Topic Discussions 60 10-27-05 17:39

Recent Threads
sup oezoem we mished you
3 Days Ago 22:02
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Days Ago 00:19
Hey fr0g
10-20-17 02:49
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Days Ago 21:47
Fuck Snow
5 Days Ago 03:36
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Days Ago 21:46
Science Disproves...
11-01-10 15:38
by Pahu
Last post by Pahu
3 Days Ago 10:04
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 07:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by Sic Simon
4 Days Ago 21:32
are you gonna eat your...
11-01-17 01:43
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 03:45
Things that I'm not...
10-30-05 21:09
Last post by Sic Simon
1 Week Ago 00:51
basic earthling rights
07-17-14 22:08
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 22:11
Where are the tits?
3 Weeks Ago 20:38
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Weeks Ago 21:33
Obama sends a letter.
10-19-17 22:42
Last post by Sic Simon
3 Weeks Ago 14:09
Online Users: 54
3 members and 51 guests
buttonugg, Dark Messiah, promgreen
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 19:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community