Bringerof_D said:
As this is a philosophy thread, i simply make my statements with that in mind.
"wiki definition"
Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.

Sociology is the scientific study of society.[1] It is a social science (a term with which it is sometimes synonymous) which uses various methods of empirical investigation[2] and critical analysis[3] to develop a body of knowledge about human social activity.

Democracy VS Dictatorship is Sociology not Philosophy!
Talking about hitler in this context is aimed at history and the question of proper system of government is sociology .

As I said before. I won't ask anyone to stop talking but don't say it is not off topic when it so obviously is from the fact I stopped talking about it.
Aw, and here I was ready to give my two cents into the whole democracy vs dictatorship discussion.

Even though, my two cents aren't even my own, it's just the comments of other people that I've read about, and which I've come to agree with (I personally don't think that much on economics or politics, not my cup of tea).

My views on dictatorship

My views on democracy

Which one is easier to fix?

However, the topic I was really thinking about during my seminar these last few days is: artificial happiness.

This topic was brought up twice recently. To set the context, let's assume that there's no afterlife, souls, or anything like that to deal with, and we are just biological machines.

Emotions as chemical reactions that can be controlled.

Would it be wrong somehow to have pills that can set our mood to whatever we wanted? A way to be always blissfully happy as needed? Is it okay to manipulate our feelings like this? (and who says we aren't doing that already when we cheer-ourselves up?)

Would it be ok to become happiness-junkies?

If you could control your emotions on a whim, would you?

My own opinion.

Or that's what I think.
SK7000 said:
If you could control your emotions on a whim, would you?
In use of any alteration there is a need for discipline in the user to maintain what was to be maintained and remove what has to be removed (e.a. change/alteration).

I can enjoy a few drops of whiskey for a whole evening while others feel the need to chug down a liter a day. Obviously I do this for flavour and enjoy the taste while the other group enjoys the numbing effects of alcohol. Methods can have mulitple effects and changes and it us to the user to be rational about them and up to society to eduacate the masses to be able to make such a rational choice or limit those that can not.


The morality behind the questions asked by SK7000 I'm missing here. What is the big question being asked? If the answer was supposed to be binary than, Yes.

We have made this point about it before If I recall correctly I believe we managed to agree that experiencing happiness and understanding/analyzing it are linear independencies.

Considering this could we also consider forced happiness to then be self-destructive? Or would we able to make a method of some kind in which we induce happiness directly as experience by isolating that area specifically and disabling the rational component to have such an effect in the first place?

I would be interested to understand your views better and for that I believe I need to know exactly what the parameters of "induced" happiness involve.
Well, I've been thinking myself about why this question gets to me and why it seems so important.

If life's purpose where to be happy, what living is left when you can just take a pill to achieve that?

In fact, assuming we don't have to worry about earning enough money for shelter, feeding and medication, why does it rubs me the wrong way to conceive of a life that's little more than being a happy vegetable eternally hooked on a happiness-inducing drug?

"Induced happiness" is indiscernible from any other kind of happiness.

In brief, think back on your most joyous occasion in life. That moment where you couldn't feel better, that moment you cherish because, regardless of what was achieved (or how), it brought a great feeling of satisfaction with your own self. Now imagine being able to feel that great by simply taking a pill every day.

So, if you can achieve Nirvana in such an easy, accessible way, what possible motivation would there be to do anything else?

From a logical stand-point, it seems hard to say "we shouldn't do that," yet I just don't feel comfortable with the concept of living that way.
I don't know if you can necessarily change your emotions at will. I don't see why you'd want to. Why would you want to make yourself angry or sad?

However, people can easily alter their emotions using a variety of natural or chemical reactions inside the body. How you feel is really only based on the chemicals being released inside of you anyway. The easiest ways to feel good physically are things like drugs or alcohol.

A healthier, but more mentally strenuous approach would be things like meditation.

Basically, how we feel is up to us. A person can change how they feel just by deciding they don't feel that way. Some people can convince themselves that they don't feel at all.

Being happy isn't something we can really measure against any accepted control. What makes me happy (which, in my case, I don't ever really GET happy) may piss someone else off. Happiness is just a concept.
I'm going to do something .... different. And I'd like a response from anyone willing to try to see and understand my point of view. As I said before, I don't believe anyone can truly understand anothers point of view so approximations will obviously suffice.

I will attempt once more for reasons I care not to explain attempt to share my views with others. If you easily succumb to negative thoughts and feelings don't read this at all
I like it. That pretty much sums up my view on the purpose of life. As i mentioned a page back, life's purpose is only to live. We survive just so we can generate more life. beyond that our actions have no purpose. Surviving for the sake of survival.

as for your call on sociology and philosophy, all semantics i say. Is the very concept of a government not a philosophical topic? The very idea of putting a person with the same flaws and limitations as any other man in charge of a group of men is in many ways ridiculous. But i do agree we did stray pretty far from the philosophical side of it so i do agree to move on from said topic.

here's a new topic for you:

Are Security and Privacy two things which are mutually exclusive, or do they have an inverse effect upon the other?

I personally believe that the two function much like a seesaw. There can of course be a happy balance, however i always find folk who demand privacy then complain of the lack of security in regards to the things they choose to keep private.
Survival isn't even very important. Not if someone doesn't want to survive. It's not so easy sometimes. There's a lot of pain that people hide. Pain that keeps someone from really knowing another person.

I like what Mnessie said, but I'm sure he feels it's not about his words being liked or disliked. As for me, I have no philosophy. Not one to live by, anyway. I lead a wretched life, and I serve no purpose. Only to help someone emotionally every once in a blue moon.

People should do what makes them happy. They should occupy their time with the things they like. If someone is truly in need, they should be helped. If someone is sad, they should be made to feel better. If something is wrong with someone, they should be fixed. If they can't be fixed, they should be protected and as comfortable as they can possibly be.

But the things that can be helped with nurturing and care and love and affection are limited.

Security and privacy. Security is for prisons and celebrities. No network is completely secure. And privacy does not exist on the Internet. No matter what you're promised.
When you people speak of medicine that can bring happiness first thing that come to my mind is placebo effect. Though it's true there is medications that stimulus our thoughts. I mean there is medications for deppression and other similiarities.
Depression medication can make you suicidal. Ironic, no? No medicine can make you HAPPY. There's medicine that can make you feel good inside. There's medicine that can help with physical pain, which will improve your mood. There's even medicine to make people think or behave more normally.

While there is medication for depression, it's not supposed to make you HAPPY. It's supposed to make you feel less chronically shitty. I hear pot can lighten someone's mood. But there's nothing you can just ingest and instantly become happy.
Ah Emmy, that's why my question was for an hypothetical case. I didn't say we have happiness-inducing drugs, I was just wondering what would be the consequences if we actually got there, and such became easily accessible to people.

My life philosophy. Or is it my philosophy about life philosophies?

@Bringerof_D: About privacy versus security: See, there is a relationship here, in my opinion. Privacy is required by the people who want to attack your safety, or else their plans will be stopped before coming into action. Thus, absolute security requires complete awareness of everybody's thoughts and actions.
If there was a drug that could produce happiness and clarity within the human mind I would take it everyday religiously.
This is veering into Philosophy Thread territory now =), so I'm taking it here to say my piece...

Freenight said:
A sadist is a sadist, whether or not he/she requires a masochist to turn the solo into a duet.
onisonfire said:
i recognize the right of free love, which covers just about any urge or fetish, but that doesn't mean literally everything is permissible ya know, especially w/o consent :< i know its just a dream, but non the less...that is fucked up man >:O
I value individuality and absolute personal freedom quite highly, so although I might not do the things Freenight is interested in and I might try to discourage others from doing them, perhaps even directly interfering, I will never try to convince somebody that they "cannot" do anything. Quite the opposite. My recommendation that people believe they are free, feel free, and act with that total freedom in mind, extends to all people without bias or exception. And I will admire anybody who tries to exercise their freedom over the objections of others who want them to be less free.

Furthermore, I have my beliefs regarding the nature of existence, specifically that all people are infinite at their core, without any sort of restriction other than that which they apply to themselves or consent to taking upon themselves, and have access to literal full control of themselves which is never lost, only hidden if they have a hand in hiding it from themselves. In other words, nothing can "be done to" somebody, because all people have the ultimate authority over their own existential entity in all its aspects, and can always override any outside influence by choice. If it seems otherwise to somebody, then I believe they are just confused, for example by fighting against a larger part of them who is making a different choice. And it makes sense to me that people would be responsible for themselves, too. Therefore I believe that all people who have entered under the set of restrictions some of you might think of as "humanity" have done so by choice, and whatever "befalls" them - due to their imposing the illusion that they can "have things done to them" upon themselves - is their responsibility and theirs alone. I'm holding individuals accountable for their own choice to brainwash themselves into believing they are puny mortals - Freenight isn't responsible for that.

And finally, I have a touch of interest in sadomasochism myself =D, both sides of it =), so I can appreciate his interests from that standpoint as well~
minabiStrikesAgain said:
"...and can always override any outside influence by choice."
What if that freedom of choice is forcefully taken away from the individual? What if all control is snatched from them, and claimed by another?
I believe the only way that can happen is with that individual's consent at some point in the process.
minabiStrikesAgain said:
I believe the only way that can happen is with that individual's consent at some point in the process.
What if I take it from them against their will? I can introduce a substance into their bloodstream that leaves them vulnerable to me and malleable to my whims.
I'm saying that if they seem to have such a vulnerability, it was their choice to impose it upon themselves. And though I suppose it's theoretically possible for a person to make themselves vulnerable, I think in this case (choosing to step into the set of limitations that comprises "being human" for a while) it's more like existential roleplaying than actually "becoming" human. So they were infinite, having no such vulnerabilities, no "body" or "mortal needs" like food and such, no weakness that allows them to "suffer injury" or "get infected" or anything like that. And then they decided to pretend to be something much smaller and weaker. But they aren't literally human, just "playing human" for as long as they please.
I'll never be able to understand you, mina.

And that's a beautiful thing.
oh i should have posted here i guess...anyways yeah minabi i feel you, i mean i'm all into this stuff also, and obviously two people CAN do whatever they want between themselves but thats why this issue is hard to pin down - nobody wants to tell someone else they can't do something when we all have our own dirty fantasies lol.

but BDSM kinda stuff is DEFinately playing with fire. with that in mind i would never want to see someone truly victimized through it.

and yeah at a certain point its like, you are free to do anything. all i ask, and this goes back to my original statement to Freenight, is that you do so in a truly positive and loving manner, in a way that values the human spirit. deriving pleasure from killing someone... nah man that's like some nazi crap, maybe just a smidge more compassion would do wonders for the bdsm sesion anyways lmao
I guess my fantasies are a tad different than simple BDSM as it also involves kidnapping. Not consensual kidnapping either.
Basically what minabi is saying we are human bags acting out as humans, imposing human limitations upon ourselves. It's like playing house, but the players aren't children, nor even human but something far more, and perhaps considerably less. Acting out as humans, and whatever happens, is because the rules, set by ourselves, allow it to happen.

In other words, everything that happens, happens because it is within the bounds of the rule of "house". As we are playing it, we know what may or may not happen, so the question of consent or otherwise is moot, as it was agreed when the rules of the "house" were determined. Before we were humans.
sure that house stuff all makes sense but there is also the fact that we all share a planet and are all connected...there is no such thing as a totally closed system, especially when it comes to human beings, and as such i might want to encourage some trends and practices and steer away from others...

like, you are free to do anything, but that's not just the end of the discussion, that's only the can be more or less than human but i don't care if your little buddy is an effing tsetse fly, you better not actually be hurting that poor thing!

otaku_emmy said:
I guess my fantasies are a tad different than simple BDSM as it also involves kidnapping. Not consensual kidnapping either.
i just say bdsm because it's all about domination and submission, and also sometimes has all that violent stuff...i'm not necessarily into leather and whips either.

i have kidnapping and abduction fantasies too...i believe that the more peaceful a world we live in the more some of these wild fantasies could actually become a reality.

Freenight said:
we are human bags
LOL...i totally read that as being...personally i see us as wayy more than that (i get that from minabi's post as well?) and as such i could NEVER see someone as just an object. like an object, sure, but even an A.I. is more than 'just an object.' like, you shouldn't abuse robots. that's not cool.
onisonfire said:
... BDSM...
Here's our snag. I am not thinking in the terms of BD, DS or even SM. I want to hurt people. I wish to carve them as one would carve a meat, except while they are alive. I wish to draw blood, gnaw on bones, step on nerves, trod upon dignities, break wills and release the souls. After I have derived enough pleasure from the persons of course.

I need no assurance from my victims that I am hurting them, save for the blood, tears and screams. I don't need to know, nor care whether or not they want to be dominated. I wish to see the tears flowing down from their eyes. The hate, defiance, revulsion, fear and more as I look into their eyes. I wish to listen to them scream, to see their lips dried, hear their voices cracked after too many screams.

The letters B, D or M have no part to play in my desires. I don't even care about the S, but a sadist is one who derives pleasure by inflicting pain, and that fits me to a T. Do not think of BDSM when you think of me. It is not a relationship of trust and bonding. There's me, then there's those on the receiving end of me. Nothing more, nothing less.

Human beings
It doesn't matter what terms you apply. Call us whimsical bags of flesh and wind or arrogant overlords, if such takes your fancy. In minabi's words, such things don't have any ultimate meaning.
I want to say (as someone into a lot of "things") that our freedom ends were the otrer's start, but theres no way to know that point, cause we dont fully know anyone, not even ourselves.
How can you fulfill someone's wishes of being raped, if that person doesnt know about that? i love being hit, that's one of the main reasons im a great handall goalkeeper, i love the pain cause it gives me a sensation of strength, stress release... but i dont like being degradated by it like a slap... I know that cause i experience it.
The point is not how far do we go, is how far can we get.

(And about freenight, he is to blame for his likes, but that its not a bad thing, i think i share most of them)
pd: a Sadist is someone how feels pleasure when inflicting pain, domination or degradation on others
Freenight said:
I wish to see the tears flowing down their eyes.
Freenight said:
Here's our snag. I am not thinking in the terms of BD, DS or even SM. I want to hurt people. I wish to carve them as one would carve a meat, except while they are alive. I wish to draw blood, gnaw on bones, step on nerves, trod upon dignities, break wills and release the souls. After I have derived enough pleasure from the persons of course.
well that would be the 'S,' sadism

you actually want to do those things? riiight so i feel that your wish is rather probably realize that...

if i could change your mind, i would. you definitely come off to me as the kind of person who would have been a nazi scientist. i wonder if you have ever tried to change your transcend your own fantasies. if you haven't, then i say you are surely misguided, and if you have then i say you are merely trippin out and should probably go hug a tree or something

remember man, peace is the name of the game here...if you don't understand that, then i really don't know what to say
I am all for peace. Provided I can grind my boots on someone's fingers while I'm at it, you won't find a more peaceful person than me.
uh huh...NO you can't do that! >:O

that's not peaceful, that's messed up and certainly debased. that is the kind of action that would elicit j retaliation from an otherwise peaceful person. the rule of a peaceful world is we must all be able to live in harmony and actions like that definitely upset the balance.

desires such as yours might not be able to be justifiably satisfied on the physical plane...our lives here are too fragile, we aren't yet demi gods and as such there's just no way that crushing someone's fingers is an alright course of action even if it's consensual.

only way i could see it being okay is if you and your partner both had bodies that regenerated instantly :) buuuut good luck with that buddy!!! if we're talking the real world, chances are you just cannot do that stuff and as such you should...~curb your enthusiasm~
"Man can only find paradise within the confines of his own mind, yet man is doomed to be a physical entity..."

- Agos -
Agos said:
"Man can only find paradise within the confines of his own mind, yet we are doomed to be physical entities..."

- Agos -
Can a person legitimately quote themselves?

I don't think we're doomed though. Our bodies are only a shell.