geekhack
geekhack Community => Off Topic => Topic started by: tp4tissue on Thu, 19 March 2015, 23:26:59
-
I don't think people are seeing this subject the right way..
All vices are fundamentally the same..
They're actions that make us Feel-Good..
The fundamental driving force of the individual and collectively all of humanity, are such pursuits and stimulation-s..
I am wholly uncertain that the person is capable of "More".
That is to say over-indulgence is inevitable; hence the crest and through model apparent in observable nature..
(http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilies/onion/th_057_.gif)
-
Title misleading
-
Title misleading
(http://www.msgking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/onion-avatar059.gif)
-
“Everything in moderation, including moderation.”
Oscar Wilde
-
A cardinal thing about these sort of "sideway" discussions is you have to start by clearly, defining vice.
Otherwise some ******* is going to say:
Not every vice is fundamentally done for the same reason.
Not every existence is equal.
Individual reasoning is neither valid or rational all the time.
The fundamental driving force of the individual isn't the same for everybody.
Individual pursuits and stimulation are different for each person.
Overindulgence is not inevitable and for that matter is not a result of vice.
-
A cardinal thing about these sort of "sideway" discussions is you have to start by clearly, defining vice.
Otherwise some ******* is going to say:
Not every vice is fundamentally done for the same reason.
Not every existence is equal.
Individual reasoning is neither valid or rational all the time.
The fundamental driving force of the individual isn't the same for everybody.
Individual pursuits and stimulation are different for each person.
Overindulgence is not inevitable and for that matter is not a result of vice.
I admire your dissection.
But we only have 1 rewards circuitry, and it's the same happy-chemicals that get released for all joy..
-
A cardinal thing about these sort of "sideway" discussions is you have to start by clearly, defining vice.
Otherwise some ******* is going to say:
Not every vice is fundamentally done for the same reason.
Not every existence is equal.
Individual reasoning is neither valid or rational all the time.
The fundamental driving force of the individual isn't the same for everybody.
Individual pursuits and stimulation are different for each person.
Overindulgence is not inevitable and for that matter is not a result of vice.
I admire your dissection.
But we only have 1 rewards circuitry, and it's the same happy-chemicals that get released for all joy..
Firstly, that's not actually true to begin with.
That's not really the point though and this is where and why your setup doesn't really work.
Vice, fundamental driving forces and motivation are such general terms with different schools of thought.
To say from the get go that they are fundamentally the same is wrong.
This is a really basic thing you're breaking here.
Rhetorically, I understand your point but it can be completely denied because your premise is flawed to begin with.
That's because what 1) what you've written is completely unsubstantiated and 2) you didn't define vice and other things.
Without a setup, it can be simply out right denied.
If you want to bring out this discussion (within such constrained parameters because again most people can just say your post is flawed), you have to define your premise and set it up better.
-
Why do I click on these threads, there is nothing to be gained.
-
LOL.. 1wolf.. I don't need a lesson in defining premises/ general writing..
The precision that could be had is not useful for discussion.
When you go in and clearly try to define these things.. It's quite counter-productive in that you need a large volume of words, which themselves are not terribly precise.
Nothing in reality actually fits into the tight boxes..
Nothing is completely red, green or blue.. they're always a combination of eachother.
That is why I take to it with a broad stroke.
-
LOL.. 1wolf.. I don't need a lesson in defining premises/ general writing..
The precision that could be had is not useful for discussion.
When you go in and clearly try to define these things.. It's quite counter-productive in that you need a large volume of words, which themselves are not terribly precise.
Nothing in reality actually fits into the tight boxes..
Nothing is completely red, green or blue.. they're always a combination of eachother.
That is why I take to it with a broad stroke.
You do realize that "broad stroke" isn't all reflected or proportional in any way, whatsoever, to the rest of your posts/responses here right?
Good session, it's fascinating that you can write so haphazardly with a certain frivolity but then contradict your purpose entirely by leading and respond with close-minded utilitarian assertions.
-
How about changing retorik instead of giving up something you like/love?
By replacing the word "vice" for "habit" you can still enjoy it and if its not super unhealthy, you dont get any negative emotions from doing it either
-
Why do I click on these threads, there is nothing to be gained.
Or perhaps your mind has become so thoroughly perturbed by the stochastic lifestyles we lead today, that you can no longer distinguish the distance between necessary action and "vice."
(http://www.msgking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/onion-avatar141.gif)
-
I think there was a philosopher who defined "evil" as excessive self-indulgence to the point of harming others or yourself. Maybe the only reason an action can be a "vice" is when you are neglecting another one's "well-being" or even your own?
Ethics discussions will always have iffy definitions lol.
-
ITT to extols hedonism.
-
I think there was a philosopher who defined "evil" as excessive self-indulgence to the point of harming others or yourself. Maybe the only reason an action can be a "vice" is when you are neglecting another one's "well-being" or even your own?
Ethics discussions will always have iffy definitions lol.
Hrrrmmmmm....
All definitions are iffy.. This is why I h8 being human.. our individual cognition is so limited because of how small we are.. And I can't see a biological brain becoming much larger because then we'll invariably run into a latency dilemma.
-
ITT to extols hedonism.
I'm not sure that's possible, because you can't actualize something that DOES the actualizing.
That is, if the hedonistic mechanism is all you know and all you're capable of doing, then there was never a decision made to act.
-
ITT to also preaches determinism makes the bold claim that all actions are external to an individual.