Jump to content
Flying Purple Hippos Forums
Lucianox

you guys are no longer intellectually interesting

Recommended Posts

Also it is pretty clear that veggie reads most of the stuff he reads for the sole purpose of being able to say that he read it, even if no one ever asks. It fits his personality perfectly

 

IF YOU KNOW THE LEAST YOU COULD DO IS ASK EVERY NOW AND THEN :cry:

 

Anything worth doing is something that takes time, but at least Kafka has plenty of short stories. Definitely begin with The Metamorphosis, and Camus' The Plague. You can find the full text online for both, but I think they deserve to be read on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you think about it, penis envy is a really weird thing, because if all goes well you will never ever actually have material confirmation of any other man's penis or their satisfaction with their respective penises :kjv:/>

 

Don't be a selfish dick, it's about the satisfaction of the other sex with your penis. IT IS A BAD SIGN THIS TOPIC HAS NEVER BEEN BROACHED

 

Are you saying that I would be envious of another's penis because I would be envious that a penis I have never seen that is hypothetically bigger will provide a woman I do not know greater satisfaction than women I bed and this idea makes me feel inferior?

 

I mean, OK, I would totally have penis envy if individual sizes were displayed on one's social network and this became a transparent metric by which bedmates were chosen in a world of instrumentalist carnality- oh wait that's probably already a reality for quite a few people :emo:

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

guys it doesn't matter what size your penis is, just kiss the girl a lot and lick her clitoris and you'll be fine :considerably:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

alternatively, if you're gay, butt cavities are pretty small so you really don't need that big of a penis for that

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ordered a few of his short stories on a single book on Amazon (it was 15 bucks!) it should arrive later this week

 

will report back on new introspection

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DF and lief are closest to the mark, but inherently raises the subjectivity issue. Basically, you want the biggest dick that will comfortably fit the girl. Too little for the girl = not as potentially good. Too much = pain. Allow me to illustrate:

 

MLrdOtN.jpg

  • I'm with stupid 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And actually on topic: So if I wanted a practical academic grounding in ethics and general philosophical topics (and wanted to avoid asking my wife, the philosophy phd, about it instead), what should I read? I have limited patience for truly esoteric stuff however.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ordered a few of his short stories on a single book on Amazon (it was 15 bucks!) it should arrive later this week

 

will report back on new introspection

 

Well done :considerably:

 

Raider: I assume you'll have gone through the whole Aristotle/Plato/Hume/Locke/Rousseau/etc line as part of your politics education?

 

You might want to go into Stoicism, though in the absence of an authoritative text from Epictetus, as far as recommended starting places are John Sellars' Stoicism & Sandbach's The Stoics. My exposure comes from all sorts of places, though, and I haven't read these. You might also want to try and find an equivalent for the Cynics. Joost probably will know more than me here.

 

Or if all that is far too basic, well, depends on what you mean by 'truly esoteric'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raider: I assume you'll have gone through the whole Aristotle/Plato/Hume/Locke/Rousseau/etc line as part of your politics education?

 

You might want to go into Stoicism, though in the absence of an authoritative text from Epictetus, as far as recommended starting places are John Sellars' Stoicism & Sandbach's The Stoics. My exposure comes from all sorts of places, though, and I haven't read these. You might also want to try and find an equivalent for the Cynics. Joost probably will know more than me here.

 

Or if all that is far too basic, well, depends on what you mean by 'truly esoteric'.

 

Yes, I have read those first in detail (well, only cared to skim Hume's stuff), and am familiar with stoicism having read Marcus Aurelius' stuff.

 

I should have also mentioned that I want to avoid classical stuff. I have a stronger backing there already and find too much of it to be useless. I guess I'm looking to fill enlightenment/post-enlightenment gaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John: all that said, I find a lot of philosophy texts to be pointless because so many of their issues can be solved with neuroscience :p

a lot of, especially the classics, are trying to define man's nature and thus his experience... which is a much more scientifically understood notion now.

kudos to them for starting it out, but it's not really relevant to my current interests.

John: at best they have left us with a variety of vocabulary which should be discarded in certain areas of philosophy - and most of modern philosophy does not care about the ancients, as it turns out. but they've just become more academic, so eh.

me: If you believe neuroscience makes obsolete philosophical ruminations about man's nature then that puts you diametrically opposite a lot of stuff I'm interested in

But straight down Joost's actual field of work

He described his program as precisely a philosophy program that is 50:50 with computer science

well, 33:33:33 with mathematics too

actually

You should read Spinoza.

It would be very interesting to see how you develop that opinion on neurosciences through that experience

John: ok.

i know very little about spinoza, so that works.

me: it's old school Oh What Is Nature stuff

but he's basically AntiKant

 

Conclusion: Spinoza.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John: all that said, I find a lot of philosophy texts to be pointless because so many of their issues can be solved with neuroscience :p/>

a lot of, especially the classics, are trying to define man's nature and thus his experience... which is a much more scientifically understood notion now.

kudos to them for starting it out, but it's not really relevant to my current interests.

John: at best they have left us with a variety of vocabulary which should be discarded in certain areas of philosophy - and most of modern philosophy does not care about the ancients, as it turns out. but they've just become more academic, so eh.

me: If you believe neuroscience makes obsolete philosophical ruminations about man's nature then that puts you diametrically opposite a lot of stuff I'm interested in

But straight down Joost's actual field of work

He described his program as precisely a philosophy program that is 50:50 with computer science

well, 33:33:33 with mathematics too

actually

You should read Spinoza.

It would be very interesting to see how you develop that opinion on neurosciences through that experience

John: ok.

i know very little about spinoza, so that works.

me: it's old school Oh What Is Nature stuff

but he's basically AntiKant

 

Conclusion: Spinoza.

 

Actually I did some neurophilosophy (literally trying to bridge the gap between philosophy and neuroscience) and basically, if you think neuroscience is anywhere near answering serious philosophical questions you're an idiot :!emo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Raider: I assume you'll have gone through the whole Aristotle/Plato/Hume/Locke/Rousseau/etc line as part of your politics education?

 

You might want to go into Stoicism, though in the absence of an authoritative text from Epictetus, as far as recommended starting places are John Sellars' Stoicism & Sandbach's The Stoics. My exposure comes from all sorts of places, though, and I haven't read these. You might also want to try and find an equivalent for the Cynics. Joost probably will know more than me here.

 

Or if all that is far too basic, well, depends on what you mean by 'truly esoteric'.

 

Yes, I have read those first in detail (well, only cared to skim Hume's stuff), and am familiar with stoicism having read Marcus Aurelius' stuff.

 

I should have also mentioned that I want to avoid classical stuff. I have a stronger backing there already and find too much of it to be useless. I guess I'm looking to fill enlightenment/post-enlightenment gaps.

 

Marcus Aurelius is crap, read Seneca

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DF and lief are closest to the mark, but inherently raises the subjectivity issue. Basically, you want the biggest dick that will comfortably fit the girl. Too little for the girl = not as potentially good. Too much = pain. Allow me to illustrate:

 

MLrdOtN.jpg

 

GREATEST GRAPHIC BY THE BOUVETOYA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE IN AGES

 

That said it needs to be a 3d graph with separate length and girth sizes and this also depends on the possibility of the receiving partner to adjust, hence the peak would be slightly later :science:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, neurophilosophy I only know 'exists', so I thought you could tell him more. But I think Spinoza will be the best starting point for him to get going on the transcendence/immanence divide.

 

Basically I only have decent knowledge of philosophy in the area I'm interested in (roughly Spinoza / William James / Alfred North Whitehead / Dewey / Hegel / Nietzsche / Deleuze), because I never had no proper Classical Education :emo:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also doesn't Raider's theory basically argue that penis size is of negligible importance for gays, which is just one step from arguing a sizable proportion of gays turn gay out of penis envy, which is like the best Freudian explanation for homosexuality :considerably:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
John: all that said, I find a lot of philosophy texts to be pointless because so many of their issues can be solved with neuroscience :p/>/>/>

a lot of, especially the classics, are trying to define man's nature and thus his experience... which is a much more scientifically understood notion now.

kudos to them for starting it out, but it's not really relevant to my current interests.

John: at best they have left us with a variety of vocabulary which should be discarded in certain areas of philosophy - and most of modern philosophy does not care about the ancients, as it turns out. but they've just become more academic, so eh.

me: If you believe neuroscience makes obsolete philosophical ruminations about man's nature then that puts you diametrically opposite a lot of stuff I'm interested in

But straight down Joost's actual field of work

He described his program as precisely a philosophy program that is 50:50 with computer science

well, 33:33:33 with mathematics too

actually

You should read Spinoza.

It would be very interesting to see how you develop that opinion on neurosciences through that experience

John: ok.

i know very little about spinoza, so that works.

me: it's old school Oh What Is Nature stuff

but he's basically AntiKant

 

Conclusion: Spinoza.

 

Actually I did some neurophilosophy (literally trying to bridge the gap between philosophy and neuroscience) and basically, if you think neuroscience is anywhere near answering serious philosophical questions you're an idiot :!emo:/>/>

 

It's cut off from the quote, but I was mainly referring just to classical philosophers. Basically a lot of the old intro stuff on the nature of man is sort of moot thanks to modern science. But there's obviously still plenty of other questions, yes. Feel free to toss suggestions my way about neurophil stuff.

Edited by Raider

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And my graph is woefully labeled. Clearly I was only attempting to speak to the hetero experience, though one would think that there would be a similar curve on a penis/anus ratio'd graph. And in absolute terms, it may favor smaller penises - though that really depends on the external variable of anal stretching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a difference between philosophical talk about the nature of man and neuroscientific discourse about the functions of the brain. For one, the former has an ethical dimension to it; for two, philosophy often revolves about the relation between the mind and the world, both in subjective and objective terms, which is a different question than what neurons fire to have a particular action performed. Not a clue where I'd tell you to start with neurophilosophy, it's so new that there really aren't any "classic" works which give you a good overview of what the hell is going on.

 

If you've read Kant on more than ethics, an interesting question that arises is the nature of time in experience, for example: is it just "there" or is it (a la kant) a manner in which we structure the world? You can draw from examples in neuroscience to point at the latter; you can seriously mess with someones experience of time in fundamental ways. Schizophrenics are the classical example.

Edited by Darkflame who likes the taste of poo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also doesn't Raider's theory basically argue that penis size is of negligible importance for gays, which is just one step from arguing a sizable proportion of gays turn gay out of penis envy, which is like the best Freudian explanation for homosexuality :considerably:/>

 

Interesting observation, prof. Veggie, will your next dissertation at the University of Bouvetoya explore this concept in more, um, depth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to have stumbled in at the middle of a good one, but why does raider think penis size is less important for gay men than straight ones?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Damnit, now I'm seriously wondering about if there's a statistical correlation to penis size and a homosexual male's tendency towards a "receiving" or "giving" role in the sexual relationship. :twitch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...