Reciprocality

I see mentions of Cercei in the thread, i believe she had just as much blue though, so ofcourse red aswell. This mother of dragons on the other hand, she would in deteriation become solid at that. "All men must die, but we are not men" -Daenerys Targaryen

I want naught achieved, only to have turned stones in solitude. If achievement can be such a stone than I welcome it, but know its essence were the conclusion, NEVER the premise. Among whom will I witness the divinity of mere stones, I dare call no name, for if I knew a name it would be a premise. This I can not deconstruct, for emotion is intra-human axioms. It is those axioms and those only deconstruction were due to, and without which apathy emerges. Without which a soul asks only a minimum so to confirm his previous delusion. .. To achieve means to corrupt all thoughts, to emphasize a the judge in one’s ethics. You say the judge is accidental, a mere means to which the achievement is the end. To which I answer: if that were not the case, how could you know, is it not eternally self-referential? Or even worse, how is there anything subjected to reference at all? Think for a while, when last did you in relation to anything human avoid actions which came to your awareness by no will of your own, which appealed to nothing short of a judge outside? And how many millions and millions more of those will there be? If ART could be cognitive, then would art not be the avoidance of adhering to ANY such judge? As opposed to the opposite, which we see in constructed aesthetics and its perfected material end?

Feelings presuppose the rationale by which freespeech could ever be enacted as law. More precise we can call it 'emotions', it is with the emotions of the speaker as well as listener in mind such laws could ever be sustainable, if there were no emotions in the reciever's end to take into considerations the law would be extranous itself, as it even more obvious is with the one speaking. There is due to extreme intricacies speech becomes hatered to degrees beyond 'opinions in and by itself', when have a statement become explicit in its prescriptions as opposed to relatively innocent descriptions? Could there even be such a thing as an opinion without underlying calls to actions, in a fatalistic sense? (i would presume the yellow types sees the connection between fatalism and a totality as its own essence) I think the mere manifistation of a human 'neccesarily aiming' for which 'fact' to point forward is testament to some unified field *those in between, ultimatley causing implications within his 'mere' usage of any data. Seeing that the bondraries between calls to action and opinions are this emorpheus i can hardly see how a third boundrary of good/evil can possibly be drawn so not to cause more harm then good in a more then 10 year timeframe, then again; begging the question. All under the premise that the interactions concerned the humans inbetween were on governmental property opperating as civilians as opposed to paid for their service in that exact area, to not utter the latter caveat would be hillariously destructive to the cause. *those as in the descriptive/prescriptive dichotomy.

GREAT question, and by extention i would add: what happens when psychological diagnoses are looked upon as philosophical lenses, more so then 'less then ideal' personality traits? I think such times would be reminiscent of daseinanalytics, so there would flow over with people not having to explicitly mask themselves. Now the implicit "mask" would perhaps never really go away, but it would be a beautiful start non the less.

Yes Arthur, so it is.

I believe my post were deleted, but a short version is an innocent question asking maybe instead that there are those you should kill. And perhaps a proposition that murder is not a categorical evil. Why should you kill them, and are those emotions leading one to such desires to be enacted? If not to an absolution then so not to remain undermined. And even which emotions murder actually sprungs within us, especially men? Are they in themselves a mere self disgust, or is there more? I would not claim knowledge on these things, which is especially why to cover it is tragical.

Haha, well it weren't meant as pessimistic as you may thought it were, for it sure sounded so reading it for myself. A first-principled suicidality weren't quite what i were going for.

But than you complain also about the asserted, not only the asserter. Does not mean you validate the reality of the asserted.

We think we live forever, thus follows destructive avocations, conspiracies is but one of those.

I believe there is this thing called "implication", so here my intuition tells me you are complaining, maybe not 'about free speech', but that which have shown to come about due to it. Edit, will we not agree those are the same?

Ultimate free speech is impossible exactly due to the reason free speech as within the first ammendment is so important, and to a lesser extent those 'paralell' laws in Europe. For speech is more than the saying of words, but the thoughts prior to it, we can impossibly have a society in which noone were influenced by noone else, and by extention that other things were less influential.

Yes, why assume a causal hierarchy? Influence and determinative factor do NOT exlude eachother, reason can influence emotion by proxy of it ITSELF being yet another part of reality. I am myself questioning the hierarchy of it, and kindly ask for guidance in that. Assertions move us forward only insofar as they can be connected to externalities, and again why I am after examples for how one goes about finding reason itself as synchronical axioms, and itself a case for the importance of reason. "Surely reason is effective outside of an emotional context" What you are asserting here is what i in the original post are after the justification of (second question), and without which i can not agree with you on. This gets into some weird territories but would appriciate you following along : ) .. So i believe (we can get back to the why of the belief) that SYNCHRONICALY, that is to say every instance in itself by extention of nothing else then itself there is emotions, senseorial sensations and incentives to actions. (of which the free will seems accidental in relation to, but this can be disputed) Then DIACHRONICALY i think our faculties for reason make sense of those emotions as well as sensations, i think biologicaly it emerged hundreds of millions later than the syncronical ones. (the biology of it are itself accidental to the claim, as simply without it the claim looses no validity) I am not desputing wheter those diachornical assesements influence the synchronical ones, but wheter they themselves becomes synchronical, a bedrock of each moment. (edit: here you may say there is no bedrock of each moment, but similar to the text down below this would be a contradiction) I whould add that to do anything at all is neccesarily a hierarchy, the valid objection would be to the content not the structure of it, for the objection would itself validate the objected. (again, be it the structure)

And IF it serves to justify emotion the mode in which i used EVER would be THE question, for it asks if ever anything else than emotion-therefore-reason could be the function of reason. To your first comment i say good luck! It is a wall one may never ascend. And have been a subliminal "verkebyll" as we say in Norwegian, for philosophers in centuries. Verkebyll could mean "congestion". "why couldn't reason work backward from thought?" I do not get the question.

Now i wonder, is it by virtue of logics you assert that, or is it by appeal to the effect of custom? The assumption past experiences are in congruence with reality and that those experiences WILL be in congruence with the future? I can say that there is a reason goats walks the earth surface, but i i can not reason all the neccesary premises for that to be logical in regards to all other animals as well as physical laws. Still i INDUCE there must be SOME reason, and if i could do it would not those premises be set 'after the fact' of seeing the goat?

In most usage of logic people seem to justify their emotions as though it were BUT an effect of reason, by backwards it is meant that they fool themselves to think that doing that IS premise-premise-conclusion when in reality they conclude first may the premises be as fantastical as they see fit. There is no doubt a motion of reasoning forwards, what i question is wetther it sequels our emotions in itself, and if yes to which extents/quantities? And if yes, how can we be sure it does not makes the first assertions in this comment absurd? Ego would be synonymous to emotion with regard to the questions, in their mutual relation to reason, so yes i certaintly agree. Which is why "But your reason is co-opted by emotion and overridden by ego." would be virtually the same idea.

This is the categorical vs the specific, there is definitley a formal set-theoretical model of how this dichotomy unfolds (if you are interested i can help you search for it), you and me will as you've said interpret any sentence in different ways, yet by means of another language loop categorize mutual agreement as a not yet understandable connection/result. Now this is an utilitairan mechanism our will is accidental relative to, it happens spontaneously before we are even conscious of it, a subception if you like. Where there is utility in playing a game in which we entertain categorical similarities we can difusely work towards goals, nothing else could be the structure of language. If all written hitherto is gobbledygook i can show you a better way of comunicating the same thing: I may call you from the north pole and claim Bears are milk colored, from Alaska you may say that Bears are chocolate colored, now we will both find the other quite deluded in their assesement but despite your SPECIFIC emperi in relative contrast to my SPECIFIC emperi we can find common ground in asserting the BEARNESS of the creature. But when we meet in Europe a month later and some bartender tells a story of a bearattack GUESS what, we will within our imaginative faculties see totaliy different bears listening to the bartender go on and find imense utility in not needing to wage a war on the other. (which is the alternative, and indeed it is)

If you are a materialist then paradoxes follows by neccesity, i think Nietszche actually wrote some deadly extentions of that conclusion in BGE. Like the world only has to 'comply' to our intelectual faculties. The only paradox is that there are no paradox if ever there were one, or rather that there can not be KNOWN one. You can in a roundabout way get to epistemological non-dualism (if one would dare call it that considering what we are discussing, hehe) by means of no spiritual sensation if the prior points are embodied. For how paradoxical is it not, that 'nothing' can both be before life aswell as after life, AS WELL as within the universe and without it? AS WELL as before the big bang as well as within it and after it? To the degree one finds those paradoxical is to the degree one can induce if not deduce non duality AS WELL as the limits of reason (yes another paradox), but will be yet to embody that which goes beyond it. Now one have used paradoxical means to conclude something of relative certainty (a certainty confined within the limits of the asserted scope), which i find hillarious.

I like how he defines solipsism as epistemological idealism, nice one. edit: Then making hypotetical scenarious 'plausible', then making plausible assertions ''matter-of-fact'' conclusions (by means of no connection btw), then calling himself a 'critical thinker'. Well, those were the first four minutes, and i love it already. Now, knowing that Leo indeed is by those definitions of modern logic "delusional" i think he would not mind the least bit seeing how that is both the premise AND the conclusion for why he reigned a war on it in the first place. He have, it seems now found a second musketeer. : D

free speech and progressivism is kind of synonymous to those feeling a little bit confused

Alex Jones is a hillarious character, he probably nay most definitley causes the world a lot of harm yet here we are capable of seperating "evil" from art. Just as we can enjoy Hitlers beautiful paintings. Alex jones is insane, insanity is absurd, absurdity is comedy and comedy most definitley is art. I love it : )

It may not be that you ought not kill another, but.. and here i am lost. I can not reason my way to this conclusion as you see, that would actually be by its own standard unreasonable, as the condition for such action is itself the apeal to ethics. Yet STILL i do what i oughtn't do, now where does that put me? unreasonable, and that i am, yet i can reason that i weren't. Well so it goes these rabbit holes, and believe you me those aren't known for being kind to those jumping in. You ask why not kill another, yet you know the BEING of not killing another, and for all the flaws and shortages of reason you may indeed see BEING as a proper constittution; its own means ultimately begging no further question. Or you wont, a life of such avoidance, a philosophical ineptitude may indeed be a blessing. To the first self contention above: one can find reason to kill, its just that the premise follows the conclusion. Well if this is true than one could argue ALL rational thought are structured irrationaly, and neccesarily never followed by its own rules. But than you have a meta rule which if followed supposedly remedies the prior 'inadequacies' which indeed just beggs the next question and the next, and so it will go on. Kill everyone and everyone only whose precence give you SENSATIONS of extreme hatred, beneath and beyond all deducements and higher faculties of the insanity that is the mind. Maybe here inlies the answer, asuming you're not of the irascible type. edit: Which in turn avoids the premise before it, the evasion of those 'higher faculties'.

That so high a number one starts worrying about inflation

Not to be harsh but this wording of the underlying question were unclear, i could guess my way to your question but i'd rather you try again so you may enjoy my idea of an answer. : )

I do not feel much for the implications due to those numbers. If i encounter a someone without dignity or serious issues i will sense empathy, but for those millions i know being in dire need i feel zero, and i never did.

What if the desire is to be worse, so to in the very least have a ladder to climb, having something to win, seeing better days? Only hiding from that desire so to loose all those responsebilities which would follow? Ultimatly projecting superiority? Perhaps THAT is desire.