Lurker > MedeaLysistrata

Romes187 posted...

I am wary of too many taxes but understand the need for some because the State in my framework is a necessity for connecting various "societies" (groups of different familial groups sharing similar underpinnings) and offers an outlet of responsibility (increases involuntary liberty...I know I get confused too) via duty.

I was mostly just trying to relate your ideas to something concrete to see if I understood them.

Romes187 posted...

As far as Ontology preceding epistemology, mimetic ideals of poetry (or art) came first and is grounded in an ontological framework. It was the later romantics that elevated the subject over the object.

Fair enough, but naturalist epistemology could lead someone to creating art that presumes that mimesis is possible at all. But I have a hard time conceptualizing how art can be ontological or epistemological tout court, rather than just being separately aesthetic in it's own realm. Clearly there can be themes of the other two concepts? Not sure, I've mostly stayed away from aesthetics.

Romes187 posted...

..you are able to 'become' a meaningful role. But you have to voluntarily take it.

Yeah. I mean Sartre has a good example of a waiter who is also a writer but I can't recall it at the moment...

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Romes187 posted...

Funny enough this is all part of a larger framework that deals with separate "spheres of existence" (individual, familial, societal, state) and each has their own version of how responsibility manifests. Morals, passions, loyalties, duties respectively. But yes, each "sphere" can become corrupt. Which is actually part of the tension I posted above.

Also how they would conflict, I guess? Interesting stuff there. Sharing this because it's somewhat related but mostly I just like the diagram:

Romes187 posted...

The problem occurs when items are moved from the realm of voluntary to involuntary (i.e. via laws or, say, the church back in the day, or even societal shame).

Fair enough. Am I right in guessing you are less inclined when it comes to supporting taxation? Or would that be too concrete? Because I am still a bit confused on the terminology using voluntary and involuntary.

Going back and reading older stuff is always fun for me. Also interesting that you put ontology as prior to epistemology... that is truly the greatest rabbit hole, probably

Romes187 posted...

Close

Victor Frankl

Peterson definitely used a lot of his ideas in his talks as well. I think he has some stuff wrong, but some of the stuff makes sense to me.

Interesting, is that where the voluntary/involuntary liberties distinction is from?

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Why just America? Why not free borders everywhere? Unironically

Or, unsarcastically if you prefer

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Romes187 posted...

probably sartre

i like hegel. I like logocentric thinking

Yeah he's fine too. I guess I like his phenomenology stuff more than the outright existentialist stuff.

Romes187 posted...

This idea of involuntary liberty as being the ability to limit your voluntary liberties (and create meaning) is what creates the tension between the two sides. Social order can indeed provide meaning, but it can become so rigid that it inhibits the ability of the citizens to take on voluntary responsibility. We cannot forgo all liberties for a life of absolute and infinite meaning, but we also cannot have pure liberty with no sense of meaning. In both cases, our consciousness would be unable to experience anything at all. If everything has infinite meaning, everything is meaningless. If everything is meaningless, there is no self-awareness because you must find meaning in something to be aware of it.

This is the inner tension that creates the dialectic. We need meaning in our lives to experience things and to protect us against suffering, and this meaning requires freedom to take up responsibility. But the structures that allow us to do this, our social and political order, become weakened by too much freedom. This in turn will sublate with the social order to create our new synthesis. What do we get when we synthesize meaning and liberty? Voluntary suffering (in varying degrees).

At this point it kind of sounds like Jordan Peterson? Idk

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Romes187 posted...

This is the true dialectic it is not Hegels master and slave because those are simply characters representing these deeper concepts. The master is liberty, the slave is meaning, and the sublimation is voluntary suffering (higher order meaning). Lets look at how this works and see how we are confusing authoritarianism with responsibility and meaning.

Hegel does oppose absolute freedom and terror, I can't remember if it comes before or after lordship and bondage though. I think a later development...

Romes187 posted...

The second and newer type of liberty is voluntary liberty. This is the freedom to do what you want, except towards those things which you adopt responsibility towards

This seems very unintuitive to me, like I get the idea behind it, and that part certainly makes sense, but I just dont understand what makes this voluntary liberty over something like limit liberty. But that is just a semantic quibble.

Romes187 posted...

State to create meaning that should normally come from the individual, the family, and society along with the State (in an authoritarian manner, but not necessarily forced by threat of violence). Once that error is corrected, all we are left with is liberty on one hand and meaning on the other.

A lot of feminists would argue that the family is also authoritarian. Take that however you want, I guess. But also that was more of a 2nd wave feminism thing, such an argument might be dead. Personally I think the individual is the greatest form of authoritarianism precisely because it is necessarily conscious.

Romes187 posted...

Nice post. You're definitely more well read in Hegel than I am.

Thank you :p

Romes187 posted...

Involuntary liberty is the original idea I laid out it is the freedom to make your own path in life to find happiness and meaning. In a Sartrean way, it is consciousness itself (through which we can experience and adopt voluntary responsibility). We do not choose it, and it is a function of that same consciousness creating social systems (a will to meaning?) allowing us to live without impediments to a fulfilling life, should we choose to live one. We cannot choose to not have this liberty as we are born either with it or without it (in varying amounts throughout history). This is liberty that moves us (or at least allows us to move) closer to meaning.

Consciousness as involuntary liberty sure makes sense. I guess following from Hegel, voluntary liberty would be self consciousness. Or being for another for Sartre.

I think you might end up being a utilitarian if you have to defend the view that taking on responsibility increases happiness and voluntary liberty is worthwhile...

Thanks for sharing

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

SaccharineSmile topics are too obvious to be bait

OP is a chad for real

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Stop doing things that confirm the thing in order to prevent the thing

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Oh ok it's not a Trump nickname.

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Is cocaine Mitch a Trump name? Does Trump like him or not? I know he also goes by Moscow Mitch which also sounds like a Trump name

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

If I had to choose I would go with Disturbed, but Last Resort is enough to carry

I only know one song by each though

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Much ado about Mitch

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

It can't be that bad, it's a PS4 game

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Wow you seemed to have planned everything, maybe people should worship you

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

...wow


---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

I... I'm not a true gamer. I just like progress.
But...

I took a shortcut
I didn't improve
I didn't grow

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

josifrees posted...

Hegel is 200 years old and his theories have been improved upon grow up

Who would you recommend instead?

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

MedeaLysistrata posted...

So ultimately a meaningful life cannot be the outcome of this, because if there is a 1:1 correlation between the derivative notions then it wouldnt be one sided enough for there to be no meaningful lives at all... since there is nothing for the negation to posit

If a person has negative responsibility or avoidance to what makes life meaningful then there is already going to be something that limits progress toward that as a concrete idea, which ultimately amounts to saying that people with meaningful lives have meaningful lives because responsible people are responsible

/more seething and coping

Also spirit is the outcome of the rational dialectic, so what I'm trying to say in the second part of the post is just that if that is all there is to it, then the rational element as a spiritual unity is just determinism. It's not possible to say that positive liberty and positive meaning meaning or negative liberty and negative meaning (which would be a requirement for rational negation) can result in any kind of meaningful life however you want to spin it, since they amount to the same thing and it just falls on the individual whether they are negative or positively inclined with respect to responsibility.

/peak seething and coping

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Romes187 posted...

appreciate it. if I have some time Ill get in detail. Starting point is the teasing apart of voluntary liberty and involuntary liberty (somewhat similar to negative and positive liberty). And the assumption that responsibility is what meaning is (or whether something is meaningful to you). And you can quickly find that voluntary liberty is in direct opposition to a meaningful life.

ive got about 55k words written on this and how it flows into aesthetics and influences our societal structure but its a work in progress.

Nvm I didnt see this post, or I guess Injust ignored it.

You seem to have started this logic with the negation, assuming you actually meant meaning is posited before liberty, since you put that first in the binary in your earlier post...

But if liberty is posited first and you have a distinction between positive and negative liberty, the negation should have the same functional distinction (since the negation of positive and negative liberty would require negatives and positives respectively...). Becoming/sublation is the result of negation because the negation is functionally equivalent to the thesis, but conceptually opposed to it. That's how Hegel grounds the dialectic by starting with being and nothingness, and their equivocation. Similarly being and essence are sublated into the concept/notion because the essence of being is essence and the being of essence is being...

So in your case the negation of liberty by meaning (though I think you meant it the other way around) and its species would essentially be formally equivalent to the negation at the level of content, which would suggest there is positive responsibility and negative responsibility, and if you accept that, which you should, then there is already going to be both forms of each concept negating each other.

/seething and coping

So ultimately a meaningful life cannot be the outcome of this, because if there is a 1:1 correlation between the derivative notions then it wouldnt be one sided enough for there to be no meaningful lives at all... since there is nothing for the negation to posit

If a person has negative responsibility or avoidance to what makes life meaningful then there is already going to be something that limits progress toward that as a concrete idea, which ultimately amounts to saying that people with meaningful lives have meaningful lives because responsible people are responsible

/more seething and coping

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Eh... Most rich people are set up to succeed or just have that as a personality trait.

Poor people I guess

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

JBaLLEN66 posted...

but I actually want to fap lol

Too bad, you're tired and busy

Fapping is for people who are awake and idle

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

See how long you can go

Semen retention wont work if you're having sex, but it's mostly a meme anyway

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Gallon smash it

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

GrandConjuraton posted...

I think the main thing matters is if you're content with yourself or your existence, but i'm definitely not content with my existence and I know that I have a lot of personal issues... Honestly, I struggle with how I feel about myself. I value my individuality above all else and wouldn't want to be anyone else, but at the same time, I have a strong loathing for myself. I know that doesn't really make any sense, but that's just how it is.

I usually feel depressed or uncomfortable with myself almost exclusively when I end up comparing myself to someone else. I think that can be good though, in many ways I have more or less given up on myself and am so complacent I generally dont even feel bad for myself anymore. Basically since I can continue on this way indefinitely I have no reason to change and just stagnate. But it's VERY hard to just throw myself into a new situation because there essentially is no difficulty setting to that, and I have enough mental issues that just being forced to change my behaviour isnt really enough, because in such situations I still find myself fucking up.

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Romes187 posted...

appreciate it. if I have some time Ill get in detail. Starting point is the teasing apart of voluntary liberty and involuntary liberty (somewhat similar to negative and positive liberty). And the assumption that responsibility is what meaning is (or whether something is meaningful to you). And you can quickly find that voluntary liberty is in direct opposition to a meaningful life.

ive got about 55k words written on this and how it flows into aesthetics and influences our societal structure but its a work in progress.

Since TC doesnt care about my shit I'll just talk to you <_<

Do new concepts come into existence or do the limits of human reason mean there are a finite amount of concepts that just get recycled?

Also why is liberty the negation of meaning here?

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

SLAMMIn

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

It will probably die in 10 minutes or so

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

NotYou posted...

Learn to write left-handed.

>learn

That rarely happens

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Writing on them is so frustrating

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

You dont have to justify your existence... or maybe you do, idk

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Yeah I guess it's an in demand versatile job... If only philosophy majors were as in demand


---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

That's a good thing TC

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

AlephZero posted...

I make a lot of money without a lot of effort.

God I wish that was me

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Topic

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Reee

I missed out on a paid internship because of this conundrum... Still think about it sometimes


---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

I was actually wondering if you can reverse the dialectical method by starting with a world spirit state description and then reducing it to more basic functives. And then use the functives to construct a new function that expresses whether the world spirit is static or progressive. The hypothesis from there would be that static ideas logically require major events to move the world spirit forward.

Sounds like the materialist dialectic, but even that sublates toward greater complexity. This kinda boils something down and then rebuilds it into an archetype. It might be not unlike deconstruction, I guess.

I also sometimes wonder what the representational content of being-Hegel entails, and if it is good or bad.

And representational content in this topic would logically necessitate a being-Schopenhauer...

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Cool, Hegel is great

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Well gee, I hope they get a mixed person for the role otherwise this was totally pointless

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Tenjou Tenge

I mean this is an ecchi shonen not really a comedy but yeah

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Wow, I thought that was a Fall Out Boy song

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

TC, since you like Solanas so much, you should look into Shulamith Firestone

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

yeah that's not a good time

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

I'm gonna buy it eventually >_>

Even when it's on sale I keep putting it off

Edit: but more than that, AC always seemed like a sleeper/cult series...

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

MFBKBass5 posted...

Your priorities will make you die an early death if you eat like shit and never care about your diet.

I know youre trolling, because no one could possibly be as dense as you.

I'm shitposting sure, but there's nothing wrong with choosing to be a bon vivant. Nothing wrong with an early death either.

Either way though the beyond meat burgers are said to be about equivalent to a normal fast food burger.


---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

MFBKBass5 posted...

Dumbest take Ive seen on CE in a while. Congrats.

>dumb take because people have different priorities

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Imagine caring about what is healthy when it comes to diet, just eat whatever you want

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Yeah man of course

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

Circus universe

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]

I wonder if the ending is gonna change from the novel, for Hathaway's Flash.

Also NT was on the Gundam.info channel for a bit, but that happened a while after it aired.

---

"Why is ontology so expensive?" - JH
[Is this live?][Joyless planet...]