I like to stall on questions from friends by saying it all depends on what I decide.

>"I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need."

No, you didn't since there is no such predication. You're willfully ignoring my point about the car and the bus and the planet and the asteroid. The planet would be in danger of being split in two, that has absolutely nothing to do with organic life existing on it yet so has nothing to do with any organic life's egomaniac myths about "need/necessity".

The rain forests being in danger of disappearing has nothing to do with being organic or alive or if other lifeforms exist (EDIT: Okay, the latter was really bad phrasing but you get the gist). Latin was in danger of becoming a dead language and then one day it was.

>"An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”"

Right, I question things so I'm a right up there with "They're abducting cows, man!" and "They shot Kennedy, dude!" (sarcasm) :-)

>"I don’t think you’re trolling."

Good.

Externally agree with this, limiting life into set of rules or even any concept that humans can grasp is out of the question since life, light and love is a combination of many things. As humans we do not fully understand 100% of any thing but our own experience in this reality and even than we normally don’t see or understand fully 100% either .

Opinion: Researching different point of views, creating your own moral and choosing which makes more sense to you and your life should be EVERYONE yearly ritual . ( even many good ones already been said and taught by “enlightened” people before, there’s still many being “uncovered” again lately.) don’t experience, BE it.

And it falls with the first strong wind.

> People disagreed, sure, but who's model of the unconscious are you familiar with? Jung's or Franz Brentano's?

None of them?

Most educated people today follow Kahneman's dual process theory if any.

But my point was more like the absolute roundabouts that researchers and therapists have to go, because "unconscious" has become an absolutely deleterious concept with no possibility of redeem.

> How often have you seen the idea of the collective unconscious pop up in pop culture?

Jesus F. Christ man. Where in the hell do you think you are? Dr. Oz's den or a somewhat professional sub?

> Remember that Freud originally said his patients were likely being molested by their parents, and was forced to walk back those comments after a large amount of public outcry.

Remember also how there's no damn standard except "anything goes" and everything and its opposite can still be true anyway.

> to renounce the his own sexual fantasy root cause theory

I think you are missing some part of the sentence there...

[removed]

Use a hammer 🔨

You simply reply nuh uh, to the points that there is no such thing as need, that there’s no such thing as an imperative, that there’s no such thing as purpose, etc that the other user wrote.

I’m not sure I put all statements they said, feel free to go back and read them again.

I ask that you engage with this topic you’ve chosen to respond to, and to do so with some relevance.

I understand the topic is of some distaste to you, but a thing’s correctness and our enjoyment of its implications are two different things.

A true philosopher gains knowledge from others and then formulates their own philosophical thoughts. Reading regurgitated references only proves one is well read. Even though your thoughts were presented properly, I can't help but wander; were you STEM educated?

Are you people not familiar with hermeneutics, or are you interpreting my comment wrong?
Please tell me you understand Hegel's dialectic method of learning 🙏

[deleted]

I already pointed out an obvious inconsistency: the concept of danger is predicated on some want/need.

An aside: when I was posting that I thought to myself “why even get involved with someone who is going to turn out to be a total crank?”

I don’t think you’re trolling.

Read everything you said lol. Oh right, you said nothing, made no points, and made no attempt to engage what the other person was saying.

>"Fine, call them inconsistencies."

Then prove to me how I'm inconsistent. Ask yourself, do I seem like I would troll you and not admit when you're making good points?

>"The only reason that's a danger/threat (and not the same thing as two air molecules bumping into one another) is because I want/need my car"

(sigh) How does one "need" a car? 3.4 million years of Stone Age, 6,000 years of Stone Age, 300,000 years of homo sapiens, cars have been around for about a century, I say we humans don't even "need" oxygen in order to breathe oxygen, that that is (for lack of a better term) a self-delusion, and your contribution to a philosophical conversation amounts to "Well, I need my car so NYAH!"

The air molecules bumping into eachother does not involve danger because there would be no consequences. If it was matter and anti-matter on the other hand...

>"and the people on the bus want/need to not be in an accident."

I didn't say there was anyone on the bus since it's irrelevant. My question was about your car having a "need". You say you have "needs", I say you don't, that is the conversation. Danger is a real abstract thing, this planet could have been in danger of a giant asteroid basically splitting it in two before there was any life on it. Does the planet have a "need" to not be split in two? No, just like I do not have a "need" to avoid becoming a drowned corpse if you chain me up and toss me in the ocean. "Need" is just one of our many egomaniac self-delusions to make the universe revolve around us in our minds when it just simply does not.

(Which is okay by the way, life is meaningful regardless.)

>"You're trying to build a philosophical system that has no internal consistency."

So you claim but so far I see no evidence you can back up that claim.

Yeah, gauntlet thrown. Identify my inconsistencies for me, I would (and I swear this on my life) be happy to know them.

Philosophy is about understanding how to think, not what to think. And, it requires one to accept that knowledge and moral absolutism, without experience, hinders ones ability to decern true wisdom from a long life of learned leasons. Adhering to practical moral principles will help navigate ones life in a positive direction. But, life like learning isn't linear, and weathering through the inevitable turbulent times that everyone faces, alone, throughout life with a fixed moral compass will drown even the most intelligent minds.

[removed]

In the words of the wise Geddy Lee - if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

>"Then what is justice without myth?"

Justice is mankind's search for an equality that is not absurd. It has nothing to do with myth.

>"How do you explain to me what it is without some sort of narration?"

Clearly (as seen above) easily. :-)

>"Is there something inherently wrong to the idea of a myth/narration?"

Not at all. Why do you ask? Seriously, I'm curious as to what I said that makes you think I was suggesting something that... broadsweeping.

>"Money does have direct influence."

No, it only affects through the imagination. Take a moment and think about it. The coins in "your" pocket, are they still "in date" or do you want to go online to check if people will trade you something for them or tell you to take them to the bank since THEY might?

>"You can use it to influence others, purchase things, or whatever."

"Purchasing" would be a myth so... And a thing can influence without being real, just look at kids running around with towels on their backs pretending to fly and shoot beams from their eyes.

>"It may be a concept, but it affects us in real ways."

Are you talking about it itself or its concept? The concept of Superman, Zeus or Odin affects us in real life but Superman, Zeus or Odin themselves affect us only through the imagination (as fictions do).

>""Do nothing" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?"

Obviously I do not.

Children aren't taught how to behave by moralizing. We teach children how to behave by imposing negative consequences on them for engaging in behavior which we disapprove of. This prepares them for adult society, where the only rules are those which the people with badges and guns enforce. Choices and consequences, "if you chose to do this, these will be the consequences, and it's up to you to decide if it's worth it."

The same sort of approach can be taken with a figure like Hitler, or Mussolini, or any such individual. Forget about right and wrong, is that the sort of life you would want to have? Dictators don't have happy existences; it's a lot of paranoia, constant stress that your cronies, who you have no choice but to rely on, might be planning to kill you and usurp your position, and also constant fear that an opposition faction might be able to gather enough support in the military or the population to overthrow you and kill you in some horrible way. There are plenty of simple, hedonistic reasons why you don't want to try to be like those guys. It sucks!

Ultimately, I don't think there are a lot of people who want to do that sort of thing anyways, but we can ignore that for now. Why moralize, when you can just present clear consequences for the choices made? The latter seems like a much more effective way of influencing human behavior towards desired outcomes than the former.

>"Flaws" are yet another myth, "imperfection" and "perfection" are two sides of the same myth.

Fine, call them inconsistencies.

>"Your" parked car can be at threat of getting hit by a runaway bus. Does your car have a "need' for not-hit-by-bus-ness?

The only reason that's a danger/threat (and not the same thing as two air molecules bumping into one another) is because I want/need my car, and the people on the bus want/need to not be in an accident.

You're trying to build a philosophical system that has no internal consistency.

[removed]

Then what is justice without myth? How do you explain to me what it is without some sort of narration? Is there something inherently wrong to the idea of a myth/narration?

Money does have direct influence. You can use it to influence others, purchase things, or whatever. It may be a concept, but it affects us in real ways. "Do nothing" is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

"Flaws" are yet another myth, "imperfection" and "perfection" are two sides of the same myth. Say you're on a deserted island; the bowl with a big crack in it can be used for filtration and the bar-brawl-tested half-smashed bottle can be used to cut things. Them being "flaws" exists only in our imagination.

"Your" parked car can be at threat of getting hit by a runaway bus. Does your car have a "need" for not-hit-by-bus-ness?

(Huh, that almost makes it sound like I'm saying survival is imaginary. :-) )

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconscious_mind#Controversy_and_criticism

People disagreed, sure, but who's model of the unconscious are you familiar with? Jung's or Franz Brentano's? How often have you seen the idea of the collective unconscious pop up in pop culture?

>There are probably thousands of people that were persecuted over this bullshit concept.

Remember that Freud originally said his patients were likely being molested by their parents, and was forced to walk back those comments after a large amount of public outcry. Also, remember that he was one of the first psychiatrists to renounce the his own sexual fantasy root cause theory in 1905, a good 75 years ahead of the rest of the world.

HAHAHAHHAHA, you are serious? yikes.

[removed]