Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Antihuman

[1] 2 ... 9
Interzone / Re: Space exploration and morality
« on: August 04, 2010, 08:23:38 AM »
The concept of god is damaged beyond repair, precisely because so many people have thought to understand it.

Interzone / Re: How crippling is alcohol?
« on: July 28, 2010, 11:26:34 AM »
I treat alcohol as a drink, not a drug.  Social or alone, it's just not something I find worth thinking much about either way.

Alcohol is by definition a drug-- alcoholic beverages are often called drinks, but it should be noted that they are not the type of drink one must consume to live (water is really the only one that fits that definition).  You can call it a drink, but the fact remains that alcohol numbs your mind ("takes the edge off"), and many alcoholic beverages contains large amounts of sugar.  I exclude it from my diet almost entirely for both of these reasons.

Social drinking drags one closer to the LCD-- that's really its only purpose.

Interzone / Re: Islam versus Enlightenment values
« on: July 18, 2010, 07:33:47 PM »
The next best step is for man to become his own judge and divorce superstition once and for all.

An entire hemisphere has endured a century or more of this practice. Did you notice?
Egalitarian superstition has not been dispelled yet.

Is it really accurate to say that is a superstition?  It is not, at least not in the same sense as we generally mean by that word.

The equality myth has risen out of our civilization's attempt to judge itself, divorced from superstition.  The idea that we're all equal-- that's where we ended up.

Then, I suppose I have merely elaborated on your post.

Interzone / Re: The supernatural: real or crap
« on: July 15, 2010, 12:51:57 PM »
It seems to me that everyone in this thread is talking about completely different things.
So can we get a definition of what qualifies as 'supernatural'?  For that matter, what is 'occult' and what is 'esoteric'?
Blavatsky had some decent ideas, but probably best to get the general feel rather than get too deep into theosophy.  Aleister Crowley's Magick Without Tears is great, but again, you probably don't have to trek through the whole text.

Look into the Tarot and astrology, too.  There are interesting things that go on with symbolism there.

Interzone / Re: Islam versus Enlightenment values
« on: July 13, 2010, 07:27:06 AM »
"Consider the Koran, for example; this wretched book was sufficient to start a world-religion, to satisfy the metaphysical need of countless millions for twelve hundred years, to become the basis of their morality and of a remarkable contempt for death, and also to inspire them to bloody wars and the most extensive conquests. In this book we find the saddest and poorest form of theism. Much may be lost in translation, but I have not been able to discover in it one single idea of value."

-Schopenhauer, from The World as Will and Representation

specifically from the chapter "On Man's Need for Metaphysics"-- essential reading

Interzone / Re: Nihilism
« on: July 08, 2010, 07:24:48 AM »
Nihilism means no inherent meaning to life.


Reality includes:

Here's where I see it slipping.  A lot of it has to do with the word 'reality', as using this term implies not only that we live in a common universe and must operate under the same laws (which is true), but it assumes that two parties (writer and reader here) have, can, or should reach the very same conclusions, without question, based upon observable data that is simply 'there' somewhere and can be interpreted objectively.

For this reason, nihilism does not say "do not believe in anything."

It says: "make sure your belief is grounded in (parallel to) reality."

Correct, sort of; use of the word 'reality' throws it off again.  We should not have blind faith, and we should not mistake mythology for a literal description of the world.  There is no giant man in the sky who judges us, but we can say there is a God in the sense that the word can embody certain concepts that correlate to observations made about the world.

Seems obvious, doesn't it? Language, symbols, feelings, etc. can be internally consistent but not relate to the One True Reality that's out there, outside the skull.

Nihilism is about getting out of the skull and doing what is realistic so that we maximize aesthetic enjoyment of life.

That's not nihilism, that's what almost any human being will say is the reason behind their actions.  If nothing else, it is certainly the goal of almost all philosophy:  the marriage of the subjective and objective.  Was Schopenhauer a nihilist?

I suppose my main problem is that you seem to assume not only that there is a 'reality' (which I have no problem with), but that you have knowledge of such and that because your knowledge is, beyond a shadow of a doubt, congruent to said reality, that anyone who is not blind (or below 120 IQ, as it may be) will have logically reached these same conclusions.

Interzone / Re: Alternatives to democracy
« on: July 06, 2010, 09:10:47 PM »
All the rest of the cliches about debates over moral principles and issues vital to the democracy is schoolboy gibberish. 

Thank you for saying that.  You are correct that in this case I am repeating what I have been told in class, and not speaking from experience.

The people elected to office aren't really making decisions; they aren't empowered to do anything more than to get people talking - talking about a lot of nonsense that neither they nor their elected officials are in a position to do anything about.

That's the important part, the reason I stand by voting being useless and the reason America isn't necessarily a democracy.  That's something I've felt for a while, and something they don't teach you in class.  Even many somewhat intelligent people think that the president has the ability to basically do as he pleases, and that he understands their plight because they elected him.

Interzone / Re: Alternatives to democracy
« on: July 06, 2010, 07:53:20 PM »
An excellent point about institutionalized imbecility, scourge.

I am not thoroughly convinced a centralized body such as the U.S. can ever have the kind consensus that allows societies to grow and progress.

Nor am I.

I just saw something the other day that said "Live it, don't proclaim it."  I don't know where that comes from, but I believe that is truly the best approach.  Uphold your values and live by them, rather than trying to impose them upon others or convince them to agree with you.

Interzone / Re: Alternatives to democracy
« on: July 06, 2010, 06:52:07 PM »
Yet by and large they are imbeciles.

No, they're all lawyers and businessmen. We have a society of too many laws where non-stupidity should have prevailed instead and commerce 24/7.

From dictionary.com, imbecile may refer to "a dunce; blockhead; dolt" or describe one showing "mental feebleness or incapacity".  These are terms that apply to a few businessmen and buddies of senators whom I have met.  While they display a shrewd exterior and do have the capacity for intellectual discussion, they are indeed feeble of mind, limited in their vision, and incapable of true leadership.

Thus the valuing "law" over "non-stupidity"; I agree with you on that point.

Is it safe to assume that this thread doesn't apply to the United States?  it's not as if we've employed anything close to a democratic construct in decades (if ever).

credit though is due to America's p.r. machine for constantly telling the rest of you filthy foreigners that we are the world's shining beacon of democracy.  bravo.

I am speaking almost strictly about the U.S.  As I said before, I realize that today voting in America accomplishes nothing.  We vote only for symbols, for what "would be nice", and after a few months of useless debates revolving around a few minor though greatly exaggerated moral principles, someone is declared leader who pretends to be able to work miracles.  It's a joke.

Interzone / Re: Alternatives to democracy
« on: July 06, 2010, 10:08:17 AM »
Nobility, not consensus.  The strong need to assert themselves and uphold the values that will foster a great civilization.

Let's stay away from consensus-- we have our "wise elders" in our Congress.  These are elected officials who have allegedly attained the best education we have to offer.  Yet by and large they are imbeciles.  Consensus means lowest common denominator; it means what the masses will understand.

Truth is, people will agree with just about anything that is said loudly enough.

Interzone / Re: Not my fault / I'm oppressed
« on: July 04, 2010, 07:48:31 AM »
I've certainly noticed this attitude among many people, both children and adults.

While it is quite disconcerting, what is perhaps moreso is that they often truly are unable to change the situation.  They blame it on some external circumstance, but really that just proves their own worthlessness as they acknowledge they are not in control.  Usually I laugh at them or make some joke to hint at this.

Interzone / Re: Does time/eternity have a beginning?
« on: July 03, 2010, 08:54:26 AM »
The physiology of ET doesn't matter; reality does not change.

But doesn't a being's physiology have everything to do with its conception of reality?  Theoretically 'reality' would not change from an objective standpoint, but we do not have access to this, now do we?

Time and eternity are just ways of expressing human concepts.

That's the easiest (and maybe most accurate) answer.  Time is a human concept; eternity is a human concept embodied in a word we use when we want to describe something outside of time.  By definition something eternal has no beginning.  But because our experience is completely temporal, we can only theorize about that which may be 'eternal'.  As far as we are concerned, nothing is eternal.

"Change alone is unchanging", to quote Heraclitus.

Interzone / Re: Selecting Leaders to End Democracy
« on: July 02, 2010, 02:12:59 PM »
For starters, voting could be limited to those who could demonstrate their ability to reason, their knowledge of politics and current events, and their willingness to spend time and effort actually thinking things through. All these things can be tested to some extent. This would thin out the herd of incompetents by a lot already and does not require all that much effort or reforming of the system.

Something about voting, though: at the moment there is no good option.

Also, "the people" feel like they are doing their duty when they vote, but they essentially accomplish nothing.  The people really don't have any power in this regard as it is.

Interzone / Re: In Opposition to Bible/Church Burnings
« on: June 28, 2010, 10:48:32 AM »
I think misinformation about Christianity is a sign of the times. Devilish times.

One of the assets of Christianity is this: it recognizes man's nature is inherently sinful, meaning uncivilized, amoral, and suited foremost for the same sort of consumption and copulation as the other animals.  Its goal is, as you said, to overturn our animal instinct and bring man to a higher state of consciousness.

After centuries of these attempts, people no longer see why this is important, and are now turning back to basic instinctual drives.  Christianity has been taken over by the masses, and we are left with its dried husk.

I attended a church service with my family yesterday for the first time in months.  I was struck by how several of the contributors to our Sunday school discussion (including the pastor) rely on their self-identification as Christians to justify the disappointment they face in their daily lives.  They have failed to live up to their own standards, and now sit back and sulk, while relying on the Bible to uplift them.

nous, I think you, and the perhaps otherwise mistaken members of my church, are right that our society is much further from the Christian ideal, and that there is value to be found in the Bible.  Unfortunately, "God's word" seems to be construed in an infinite number of ways, and is more dependant upon the reader/ interpretive community than anything.

Further, I would argue that most metal bands do not truly understand the Bible, but only the aforementioned husk of Christianity which strives for little more than self-righteousness.  This is what they rebel against, and for good reason.

EDIT:  Important, too: the word 'gothic'.  Black metal certainly relies on an extremely 'gothic' aesthetic, and look at the Gothic churches, as posted above.  It's not just the word that relates these things.

Metal / Re: Ildjarn: Last Man Standing
« on: June 27, 2010, 07:36:37 PM »
I've been listening to Ildjarn with renewed interest since my last post.  His doing away with musicality lends to both the clarity and maturity of his work.

I don't know what there is not to like.  Honestly, I appreciate this band more than much Burzum output (save perhaps HLTO).

[1] 2 ... 9