Philosophy is useless

[Satyr]

Hi Satyr


--This is petulant.--

--This is confabulation.--

My, what big words you use sir. You must be a man of some status...a banker, perchance...a pimp?

--No you don't.--

Good call...let's play some more, shall we?

--This is gibberish.--

Very astute.

--Because it is obvious.--

Everything is simple to a simpleton.

--No it won't.--

Excellent retort...but your genius is wearing me down sir. Forgive me if I fail to show up to your next tea party.

--Confabulation.--

Gesticulation.

--Try and hold on to that thought.--

Patronization.

--No.--

Congratulation.

--Too bad.--

Reverberation.

--Egotism. What did I say that made you think of you?--

Why me, nit...wit.
Repetition.

--No I didn't.--

Obfuscation.

--Yes.--

Going...

--This is meaningless.--

...going...

--Yes,unless you are xenophobic.--

....Gooone.
Oh dear, nit...wit, how you fool yourself.
The unknown is always a source for a bit of anxiety.

--Can you not see the irony?--

Do you think I am playing the Robin...Hood?

I steal from the rich and...keep it.

Are you not here to save your herd, nit....wit?
Are you not here to teach me a lesson and put me in my palce and expose me?

Have you not already done so...in your head?

--Confabulation.--

Regurgitation.

--Delusion.--

Seclusion.

--This is funny.--

Diffusion.

Next you will tell me how entertaining i have been to you.

--I asked a question.--

Me too.

--The following two sentences.--

Is this a projection into the future?

--Well done for looking it up.--

I loves the internets.

--This is projection.--

So is this.

--This made me laugh.--

Welcome.

--You are a basket-case.(Euphemism.)--

Is this a projection?

--Projection; more irony.--

I love psychology 101. I bet you didn't look that up on the Internets.

"You are a drunk" says the police officer to a man.
"You are projecting ossifer" retorts the man.
Case closed.

--You are a perfectly normal type of nutter.--

Nope...no projection there.
More like teleportation.

--Projection.--

Ha!!!
The amateur psychologist has fallen into a rut...the tinmy needle in his tiny brain is stuck in a looping groove.

--No, sorry, it's all the same shit, the reason people keep telling you that you are bonkers is because you are bonkers.--

Case closed...we took a vote and you were declared insane.
Next week we vote on gravity; majority decides if we submit to its force or we give it up.

Ha!!!!

Jesus this is so fuckin' easy.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You say, "Jesus, this is fucking easy." Well, that's because eveything you have written is trivial or facile.

A quick look at your Metaphysics suggests we could have an interesting discussion:

"- All is in Flux - flow."
You, me and Heraclitus.

"-Time- A human measurment of this flow, based on organic processes."
Why organic rather than chemical or atomic?

"-Space- The projection of the possibility of this flow, also based on organic, estalbished methods."
Intriguing, but again, why organic?

"-Consciousness- Stream of thought produced by a simple on/off neurological mechanism,"
You criticise mathematicians for failing to define 1 and 0,what then are on/off?

I accept that you describe this as "A brief and simplified exposition of Satyr's metaphysical positions:" but I don't think it worthwhile arguing with a petulant fiction that throws their toys out of the pram at the first sign of a challenge. You want "sheeple" to agree with you. No. That is why philosophy is not useless.

[reasonvemotion]

Quid pro Quo, I love these small quotes you sneak in from Silence of the Lambs.

[Satyr]

Hi Satyr

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. You say, "Jesus, this is fucking easy." Well, that's because eveything you have written is trivial or facile.

Indeed, little nit....wit.

And when I go to a kindergarten I do not engage the children above their level.

A quick look at your Metaphysics suggests we could have an interesting discussion:

"- All is in Flux - flow."
You, me and Heraclitus.

See why you are a nit...wit?
You are still governed by this presumption you poke at.

"-Time- A human measurement of this flow, based on organic processes."
Why organic rather than chemical or atomic?

Time, you nit...wit....is a human construct. It is based on human metabolic or neurological rates.
It is a human construct, standard, which measures change.
Change, nit....wit....is a result of a juxtaposition of mental abstractions.
Fluidity does not exhibit gaps, there is no void between one and two, but human consciousness - consciousness in general - is based no binary methods of "freezing" the fluidity, or abstracting it, into static points or static forms.
These forms are juxtaposed in a stream we call consciousness and the divergences perceived is what we perceive as change and we interpret as action, movements.

"-Space- The projection of the possibility of this flow, also based on organic, established methods."
Intriguing, but again, why organic?

Because only a conscious brain can project, nit....wit.
Inorganic has no capacity to know or to perceive patterns or to project.

"-Consciousness- Stream of thought produced by a simple on/off neurological mechanism,"
You criticise mathematicians for failing to define 1 and 0,what then are on/off?

Excellent nit....wit.
On/Off is binary logic: good/bad, evil/good, 1/0, God/Satan.
It is produced when the neuron clusters in the brain experience bio-energy pulse, stimulating them. The combination of stimulated neuron - neuron clusters - is then combined by another mental agency and we have consciousness.
Now this flow/no-flow through the neuron is the basis of binary, Cartesian, dualism which , despite what is said still dominates the minds of men...particularly the less intelligent ones.

I accept that you describe this as "A brief and simplified exposition of Satyr's metaphysical positions:" but I don't think it worthwhile arguing with a petulant fiction that throws their toys out of the pram at the first sign of a challenge.

If I see a challenge not....wit, I will most certainly not avoid it.
You are not it.

You want "sheeple" to agree with you. No. That is why philosophy is not useless.

You think I want you to agree with me?
Oh you poor nit....wit....this is why you are so easy.
Philosophy is useless to the simpletons of the world who think philosophy is an academic discipline.

A few quotes from one of the greats for the nit...wit:

• Thus a man who thinks for himself only subsequently becomes acquainted with the authorities for his opinions when they serve merely to confirm him therein and to encourage him.
The book-philosopher, on the other hand, starts from those authorities in that he constructs for himself an entire system from the opinions of others which he has collected in the course of his reading.

• Those who have spent their lives reading and have drawn their wisdom from books resemble men who have acquired precise information about a country from many descriptions of travel. They are able to give much information about things, but at bottom they have really no coherent, clear, and thorough knowledge of the nature of the country.

• The works of really capable minds differ from the rest in their character of decisiveness and definiteness, together with the distinctness and clearness springing there from, since they at all times clearly and definitely knew what they wanted to express; it may have been in prose, verse, or tones. The rest lack this decisiveness and clearness; and in this respect they can be at once recognized.
The characteristic sign of all first-rate minds is the directness of all their judgments and opinions. All that they express and assert is the result of their own original thinking and everywhere proclaims itself as such even by the style of delivery....Therefore every genuine and original thinker is to this extent like a monarch; he is immediate and perceives no one who is his superior. Like the decrees of a monarch, his judgments spring from his own supreme power and come directly from himself.

[uwot]

Hi Satyr
Your last post made me laugh. Your problems are manifold; one is that you believe the voices in your head. The irony is that you use another's words to convince yourself of their veracity. Another problem you have is that your insistence on having the last word prevents you learning anything.

Best wishes

nit....wit

[Satyr]

Nice exit strategy....so say the "voices in my head".

Did you think it would be that easy...nit...wit?

By and by....I "learn" from those who have something to say.
You, and your buddies, nit...wit...have nothing, nada, zilch, zero.

The idea that if one does not respect YOU he must not respect nothing is part of your own "internal dialogue'...nit....wit.
It's comforting and a self-flattering excuse, for it presupposes that you are worth listening to when you say absolutely nothing, zilch, nada, zero.

[Satyr]

• Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.

• The great person is ahead of their time, the smart make something out of it, and the blockhead, sets themselves against it.

• The liberated man is not the one who is freed in his ideal reality, his inner truth, or his transparency; he is the man who changes spaces, who circulates, who changes sex, clothes, and habits according to fashion, rather than morality, and who changes opinions not as his conscience dictates but in response to opinion polls.

• The absence of things from themselves, the fact that they do not take place though they appear to do so, the fact that everything withdraws behind its own appearance and is, therefore, never identical with itself, is the material illusion of the world, And, deep down, this remains the great riddle, the enigma which fills us with dread and from which we protect ourselves with the formal illusion of truth.

• Were it not for appearances, the world would be a perfect crime, that is, a crime without a criminal, without victim and without a motive. And the truth would forever have withdrawn from it and its secret would never be revealed, for want of any clues [traces] being left behind. But the fact is that the crime is never perfect, for the world betrays itself by appearances, which are the clues to its nonexistence, the traces of the continuity of the nothing. For the nothing itself – the continuity of the nothing – leaves traces. And that is the way the world betrays its secret. That is the way it allows itself to be sensed, while at the same time hiding away behind appearances.

• Doomed to our own image, our own identity, our own “look”, and having become our own object of care, desire and suffering, we have grown indifferent to everything else. And secretly desperate at that indifference, and envious of every form of passion, originality or destiny. Any passion whatever is an affront to the general indifference. Anyone who, by his passion, unmasks how indifferent, pusillanimous or half-hearted you are, who, by the force of his presence of his suffering, unmasks how little reality you have, must be exterminated. There you have the other resuscitated, the enemy at last re-embodied, to be subjugated or destroyed.

• In this same way, on the pretext of unconditional respect for life (what could be more politically correct?), we have heard the following humanitarian profession of faith pronounced: no idea in the world is worth killing for (nor, doubtless, worth dying for). No human being deserves to be killed for anything whatsoever. A final acknowledgment of insignificance: both of ideas and of people. This statement, which actually seeks to show the greatest respect for life, attests only to a contempt and an indifference for ideas and for life. Worse than the desire to destroy life is this refusal to risk it – nothing being worth the rouble of being sacrificed. This is truly the worse offence, the worse affront possible. It is the fundamental proposition of nihilism.

• The futility of everything that comes to us from the media is the inescapable consequence of the absolute inability of that particular stage to remain silent. Music, commercial breaks, news flashes, adverts, news broadcasts, movies, presenters—there is no alternative but to fill the screen; otherwise there would be an irremediable void.... That’s why the slightest technical hitch, the slightest slip on the part of the presenter becomes so exciting, for it reveals the depth of the emptiness squinting out at us through this little window.

• The whole gestural system of work was also obscene, in sharp contrast to the miniaturized and abstract gestural system of control to which it has now been reduced. The world of the objects of old seems like a theater of cruelty and instinctual drives in comparison with the formal neutrality and prophylactic 'whiteness' of our perfect functional objects. Thus the handle of the flatiron gradually diminishes as it undergoes 'contouring' - the term is typical in its superficiality and abstractness; increasingly it suggests the very absence of gesture, and carried to its logical extreme this handle will no longer be manual - merely manipulable. At that point, the perfecting of the form will have relegated man to a pure contemplation of his power.


• The obscenity of our culture resides in the confusion of desire and its equivalent materialized in the image; not only for sexual desire, but the desire for knowledge and its equivalent materialized in ”information,” the desire for fantasy and tis equivalent materialized in the Disneylands of the world, the desire for space and tis equivalent programmed into vacation itineraries, the desire for paly and its equivalent programmed into private telematics. It is this promiscuity the ubiquity of images, this viral contamination of things by images, which are the fatal characteristics of our culture. And this knows no bounds, because unlike sexed animal species protected by a kind of internal regulatory system, images cannot be prevented from proliferating indefinitely, since they do not breed organically and know neither sex nor death.

• This is the only scale by which we can measure our present situation. By dint of meaning, information, and transparence our societies have passed beyond the limit point, that of permanent ecstasy: the ecstasy of the social (the masses), the body (obesity), sex (obscenity), violence (terror), and information (simulation). If, in fact, the era of transgression has ended, it is that things themselves have transgressed their own limits. If one can no longer reconcile things with their essence, it is because they have mocked and surpassed their own definition. They have become more social than the social (the masses), fatter than fat (obesity), more violent than the violent (terror), more sexual than sex (porn), more real than the real (simulation), more beautiful than the beautiful (fashion).

• One thing is for certain: if it is absurd for the subject to become object, then it is equally inconsequent to dream that the object can become subject. This is, however, what is maintained by the science and conscience of the Western world.

• From a biological, genetic and cybernetic point of view, we are all mutants. Now, for mutants there can no longer be any Last Judgment, or the resurrection of the body, for what body will be resurrected? It will have changed formula, chromosomes, it will have been programmed according to other motor and mental variables, it will no longer have any claim on its own image.

• Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. This would be the successive phases of the image: –it is the reflection of a basic reality–it masks and perverts a basic reality–it masks the absence of a basic reality –it bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum. In the first case, the image is a good appearance–the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance–of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance–it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation.

• Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality; a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – PRECESSION OF SIMULACRUM–it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.

From whom do I learn form?
Certainly not from douche-bags like most of you.
Certainly not from Marx or Jesus or your American icons.

Baudelaire, for one and then...Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Baudelaire, Spengler, Stirner, De Guenon, Evola, Heidegger, Heisman, Weininger, Le Bon, Confucius, Mencken, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Postman, Pinker, Hanson, Freud, Jung and on and on and on...
But most of all I learn by observing reality directly and not burying my head up my asshole, expecting specialists and experts to tell me what to think and when to think it and what is appropriate and what is not; I learn from life, the world, not projecting my personal desires and preferences and expectations upon it but by clenching my heart and looking despite myself.

I stare into the void...

[ForgedinHell]

• Like dreams, statistics are a form of wish fulfillment.

• The great person is ahead of their time, the smart make something out of it, and the blockhead, sets themselves against it.

• The liberated man is not the one who is freed in his ideal reality, his inner truth, or his transparency; he is the man who changes spaces, who circulates, who changes sex, clothes, and habits according to fashion, rather than morality, and who changes opinions not as his conscience dictates but in response to opinion polls.

• The absence of things from themselves, the fact that they do not take place though they appear to do so, the fact that everything withdraws behind its own appearance and is, therefore, never identical with itself, is the material illusion of the world, And, deep down, this remains the great riddle, the enigma which fills us with dread and from which we protect ourselves with the formal illusion of truth.

• Were it not for appearances, the world would be a perfect crime, that is, a crime without a criminal, without victim and without a motive. And the truth would forever have withdrawn from it and its secret would never be revealed, for want of any clues [traces] being left behind. But the fact is that the crime is never perfect, for the world betrays itself by appearances, which are the clues to its nonexistence, the traces of the continuity of the nothing. For the nothing itself – the continuity of the nothing – leaves traces. And that is the way the world betrays its secret. That is the way it allows itself to be sensed, while at the same time hiding away behind appearances.

• Doomed to our own image, our own identity, our own “look”, and having become our own object of care, desire and suffering, we have grown indifferent to everything else. And secretly desperate at that indifference, and envious of every form of passion, originality or destiny. Any passion whatever is an affront to the general indifference. Anyone who, by his passion, unmasks how indifferent, pusillanimous or half-hearted you are, who, by the force of his presence of his suffering, unmasks how little reality you have, must be exterminated. There you have the other resuscitated, the enemy at last re-embodied, to be subjugated or destroyed.

• In this same way, on the pretext of unconditional respect for life (what could be more politically correct?), we have heard the following humanitarian profession of faith pronounced: no idea in the world is worth killing for (nor, doubtless, worth dying for). No human being deserves to be killed for anything whatsoever. A final acknowledgment of insignificance: both of ideas and of people. This statement, which actually seeks to show the greatest respect for life, attests only to a contempt and an indifference for ideas and for life. Worse than the desire to destroy life is this refusal to risk it – nothing being worth the rouble of being sacrificed. This is truly the worse offence, the worse affront possible. It is the fundamental proposition of nihilism.

• The futility of everything that comes to us from the media is the inescapable consequence of the absolute inability of that particular stage to remain silent. Music, commercial breaks, news flashes, adverts, news broadcasts, movies, presenters—there is no alternative but to fill the screen; otherwise there would be an irremediable void.... That’s why the slightest technical hitch, the slightest slip on the part of the presenter becomes so exciting, for it reveals the depth of the emptiness squinting out at us through this little window.

• The whole gestural system of work was also obscene, in sharp contrast to the miniaturized and abstract gestural system of control to which it has now been reduced. The world of the objects of old seems like a theater of cruelty and instinctual drives in comparison with the formal neutrality and prophylactic 'whiteness' of our perfect functional objects. Thus the handle of the flatiron gradually diminishes as it undergoes 'contouring' - the term is typical in its superficiality and abstractness; increasingly it suggests the very absence of gesture, and carried to its logical extreme this handle will no longer be manual - merely manipulable. At that point, the perfecting of the form will have relegated man to a pure contemplation of his power.


• The obscenity of our culture resides in the confusion of desire and its equivalent materialized in the image; not only for sexual desire, but the desire for knowledge and its equivalent materialized in ”information,” the desire for fantasy and tis equivalent materialized in the Disneylands of the world, the desire for space and tis equivalent programmed into vacation itineraries, the desire for paly and its equivalent programmed into private telematics. It is this promiscuity the ubiquity of images, this viral contamination of things by images, which are the fatal characteristics of our culture. And this knows no bounds, because unlike sexed animal species protected by a kind of internal regulatory system, images cannot be prevented from proliferating indefinitely, since they do not breed organically and know neither sex nor death.

• This is the only scale by which we can measure our present situation. By dint of meaning, information, and transparence our societies have passed beyond the limit point, that of permanent ecstasy: the ecstasy of the social (the masses), the body (obesity), sex (obscenity), violence (terror), and information (simulation). If, in fact, the era of transgression has ended, it is that things themselves have transgressed their own limits. If one can no longer reconcile things with their essence, it is because they have mocked and surpassed their own definition. They have become more social than the social (the masses), fatter than fat (obesity), more violent than the violent (terror), more sexual than sex (porn), more real than the real (simulation), more beautiful than the beautiful (fashion).

• One thing is for certain: if it is absurd for the subject to become object, then it is equally inconsequent to dream that the object can become subject. This is, however, what is maintained by the science and conscience of the Western world.

• From a biological, genetic and cybernetic point of view, we are all mutants. Now, for mutants there can no longer be any Last Judgment, or the resurrection of the body, for what body will be resurrected? It will have changed formula, chromosomes, it will have been programmed according to other motor and mental variables, it will no longer have any claim on its own image.

• Whereas representation tries to absorb simulation by interpreting it as false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation as itself a simulacrum. This would be the successive phases of the image: –it is the reflection of a basic reality–it masks and perverts a basic reality–it masks the absence of a basic reality –it bears no relation to any reality whatever; it is its own pure simulacrum. In the first case, the image is a good appearance–the representation is of the order of sacrament. In the second, it is an evil appearance–of the order of malefice. In the third, it plays at being an appearance–it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer in the order of appearance at all, but of simulation.

• Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality; a hyperreal. The territory no longer precedes the map, nor survives it. Henceforth, it is the map that precedes the territory – PRECESSION OF SIMULACRUM–it is the map that engenders the territory and if we were to revive the fable today, it would be the territory whose shreds are slowly rotting across the map, whose vestiges subsist here and there, in the deserts which are no longer those of the Empire, but our own. The desert of the real itself.

From whom do I learn form?
Certainly not from douche-bags like most of you.
Certainly not from Marx or Jesus or your American icons.

Baudelaire, for one and then...Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, Baudelaire, Spengler, Stirner, De Guenon, Evola, Heidegger, Heisman, Weininger, Le Bon, Confucius, Lao Tzu, Buddha, Postman, Pinker, Hanson, Freud, Jung and on and on and on...
But most of all I learn by observing reality directly and not burying my head up my asshole, expecting specialists to tell em what to think and when to think it and what is appropriate and what is not; I learn form life, the world, not projecting my personal desires and preferences and expectations.

I stare into the void...

If you are "learning" from people like Freud, then you are not learning about reality. Jung? Give me a break. Oh, but don't look now, Pinker is an American Icon.

[Satyr]

You have a narrow view.

Jung teaches me about primordial icons and how they permeate through time via myths and stories and symbols.
He teaches me to look upon popular culture and discern the repeated symbolism knowing that they are not new...but older than the present; that they find their roots in my primal psyche.

What of Batman and the Joker...and James Bond and all these pop icons?
What of the Olympian gods?

Are they "original" to use the term the retard used?

All is a continuum...Flow....Heraclitus.
Culture does not emerge out of this air....gender is not a detached figment of a males imagination.
This story line is for infants and morons...stunted minds...like most of the participants here.

They come here to be comforted by philosophy...as they would by religion.
Do you see where the problem lies?
They expect easy solutions to their existential issues...when there are none.
Awareness helps you cope, it makes life easier...it does not make you escape and it does not make you avoid the pain and suffering necessary to make life easier.

What we have here are a flock of pigeons...birdbrains...sheeple.
What hunter can resist such a flock?

Are you one of them?

[ForgedinHell]

You have a narrow view.

Jung teaches me about primordial icons and how they permeate through time via myths and stories and symbols.
He teaches me to look upon popular culture and discern the repeated symbolism knowing that they are not new...but older than the present; that they find their roots in my primal psyche.

What of Batman and the Joker...and James Bond and all these pop icons?
Are they "original" to use the term the retard used?

Jung is for fools, and so is Freud. It's pure nonsense. You may as well believe in pregnant virgins and demon possession and Jesus appearing on toast, as to believe that Jung and Freud have anything of merit to offer.

[Satyr]

You have a narrow view.

Jung teaches me about primordial icons and how they permeate through time via myths and stories and symbols.
He teaches me to look upon popular culture and discern the repeated symbolism knowing that they are not new...but older than the present; that they find their roots in my primal psyche.

What of Batman and the Joker...and James Bond and all these pop icons?
Are they "original" to use the term the retard used?

Jung is for fools, and so is Freud. It's pure nonsense. You may as well believe in pregnant virgins and demon possession and Jesus appearing on toast, as to believe that Jung and Freud have anything of merit to offer.

And you are a moron.

Here you are a victim of Freudian insights, applied by his nephew Bernays, claiming that he had no clue.
Watch this, you imbecile, and get back to me:
Century of Self

You are living in a world governed by Freudian manipulation, you imbecile.
Modern day politics and marketing is based on his thoughts.

Moron, it is true that Freud was a bit heavy on the sex angle, but that he did not go deeper does not make his insights less effective when it comes to superficial sex driven, simpletons, like you.
He was a master in human husbandry...but not original. He too learned from others.
He offers color.

But I love your casual declarative dismissals. This form of "philosophy" has been going on for years around here, no?
It is not surprising that you then conclude that philosophy is useless, no?
Nobody has been around to correct your stupidity...and in the name of civility and politeness you all just sit there listening to this crap, offering your own, and all results in filth.

Imbecile..I told you why I appreciate Jung...evidently he is above and beyond your capacity to assimilate.
So be it.
I also enjoy some fine wines...if I come across a narcoleptic imbecile with no palate I do not trouble myself with his numbness.

[ForgedinHell]

You have a narrow view.

Jung teaches me about primordial icons and how they permeate through time via myths and stories and symbols.
He teaches me to look upon popular culture and discern the repeated symbolism knowing that they are not new...but older than the present; that they find their roots in my primal psyche.

What of Batman and the Joker...and James Bond and all these pop icons?
Are they "original" to use the term the retard used?

Jung is for fools, and so is Freud. It's pure nonsense. You may as well believe in pregnant virgins and demon possession and Jesus appearing on toast, as to believe that Jung and Freud have anything of merit to offer.

And you are a moron.

Here you are a victim of Freudian insights, applied by his nephew Bernays, claiming that he had no clue.
Watch this, you imbecile, and get back to me:
Century of Self

You are living in a world governed by Freudian manipulation, you imbecile.
Modern day politics and marketing is based on his thoughts.

Moron, it is true that Freud was a bit heavy on the sex angle, but that he did not go deeper does not make his insights less effective when it comes to superficial sex driven, simpletons, like you.
He was a master in human husbandry...but not original. He too learned from others.
He offers color.

But I love your casual declarative dismissals. This form of "philosophy" has been going on for years around here, no?
It is not surprising that you then conclude that philosophy is useless, no?
Nobody has been around to correct your stupidity...and in the name of civility and politeness you all just sit there listening to this crap, offering your own, and all results in filth.

Imbecile..I told you why I appreciate Jung...evidently he is above and beyond your capacity to assimilate.
So be it.
I also enjoy some fine wines...if I come across a narcoleptic imbecile with no palate I do not trouble myself with his numbness.

Freud is the father of a pseudoscience. You may as well tell me you believe in numerology, astrology and phrenology. You can hide behind the make-believe, I am sticking with reality.

[Satyr]

You haven't' watched the documentary nor considered the facts outside your arse.

That you refuse to think contradicts your claim that you are"sticking with reality". The only "reality" you are sticking with, you imbecile, is the one which soothes and comforts you; the one that lends credence to your equatorial, liberal, bull-crap.
In short...you....ARE....a....MORON!!!!
Imbecile, all these minds are offering insights into reality, so when you "stick to reality" what reality are you sticking to?
Is it the one that flatters you or is it the one that agrees with your hopes and dreams?

Moron, I repeat:
Freud was saved from the Nazis by his nephew Bernays.
Follow me so far?
Bernays is well known as the father of modern-day political propaganda and, more importantly, modern-day marketing...of which you are particularly a victim of.
This is ironic given that you dismiss Freud when being a victim of his insights.

Freud is now discredited by popular culture because such information must be kept out of the hands of others and the myriads of morons, like you, who should not be made aware of them.
This only diminishes the effect.

I told you, the only issue I have with Freud is that he was a bit heavy-handed with the sex stuff, and did not go deeper into the subjects that made sex possible or the metaphysics that underlay his sexually based conclusions.

That you dismiss him altogether, like you do Jung (perhaps Adler is your cup of tea), only exposes how brainwashed you are.
This makes you a perfect victim of the very insights you dismiss.

[ForgedinHell]

You haven't' watched the documentary nor considered the facts outside your arse.

That you refuse to think contradicts your claim that you are"sticking with reality". The only "reality" you are sticking with, you imbecile, is the one which soothes and comforts you; the one that lends credence to your equatorial, liberal, bull-crap.
In short...you....ARE....a....MORON!!!!
Imbecile, all these minds are offering insights into reality, so when you "stick to reality" what reality are you sticking to?
Is it the one that flatters you or is it the one that agrees with your hopes and dreams?

Moron, I repeat:
Freud was saved from the Nazis by his nephew Bernays.
Follow me so far?
Bernays is well known as the father of modern-day political propaganda and, more importantly, modern-day marketing...of which you are particularly a victim of.
This is ironic given that you dismiss Freud when being a victim of his insights.

Freud is now discredited by popular culture because such information must be kept out of the hands of others and the myriads of morons, like you, who should not be made aware of them.
This only diminishes the effect.

I told you, the only issue I have with Freud is that he was a bit heavy-handed with the sex stuff, and did not go deeper into the subjects that made sex possible or the metaphysics that underlay his sexually based conclusions.

That you dismiss him altogether, like you do Jung (perhaps Adler is your cup of tea), only exposes how brainwashed you are.
This makes you a perfect victim of the very insights you dismiss.

Why would I waste my time? Freud and his cigars. Just not a manly man if you ask me.

[Satyr]

Thank you for being you.
I mean it.