My first short, angry, rant.
- Thread starter philosophicalbastard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
They don't deal with their problems, they ***** about their problems. There's a difference. I hate the term realist in general because it assumes that these people know a greater truth when all they know is their own experience. It's an insane man calling himself a realist, all he has is his delusions and those are as real to him as anything in your life is to you. A person who calls himself a realist is just arrogant in my books.Pimppeter2 said:
I thank you, good sir.Kollega said:
Let's take a thought experiment.Blueruler182 said:
Do you believe in Democracy? Do you find it the best choice to run a country out of all choices?
I have to say that, in my opinion, we need to start living our lives again, and stop trying to constantly "fix" them first. If we wait until we solve all of our problems before we're allowed to do anything interesting, we'll never do anything interesting again.
Sure, it's important that we are aware of what is and isn't practical, but I firmly believe that efficiency is completely inhuman and the source of most suffering in societies that have progressed beyond basic need fulfillment.
I say screw it! We're going to find a way to fuck everything up anyway, let's fuck it up by doing something awesome!
Sure, it's important that we are aware of what is and isn't practical, but I firmly believe that efficiency is completely inhuman and the source of most suffering in societies that have progressed beyond basic need fulfillment.
I say screw it! We're going to find a way to fuck everything up anyway, let's fuck it up by doing something awesome!
While I will entertain the experiment out of shear boredom, I must warn you that any questions after this one will be answered tomorrow, and I feel the need to inform you that this in no way will be able to change the fact that the view of reality is subject to the individual who feels it.Pimppeter2 said:
I believe in democracy, but a country cannot be run "out of all choices" simply because it'd be nothing but bickering. The way it currently works is perfectly fine though.
I know how you feel.philosophicalbastard said:
The 'Scapist is a fun place and all, but it is filled with this kind of thought.
They're so eager to talk for the sake of noise, so eager to argue for the sake of conflict, its insane.
But its just about their own insecurities and defending what they suppose is the ultimate way to perceive the everything. But faith in, "Facts" is really the same as the religions they're so eager to argue against.
You aren't crazy for disagreeing with people who argue in this manner; really, I've found this cynical behavior to be something to be grown out of.
At this point, though, I typically just keep my mouth shut and don't respond to these devil's advocate responses; it may itch at you, but its really not worth the trouble.
[small]
God, I hate the word, "Them." Its so exclusive. I'm not perfect, and I know I can make my own foolish contestments, too.[/small]
Fine then, I'm planning on going to sleep anyways. Continue this whenever you can.Blueruler182 said:
You would then say that Democracy is the best form of government, better than any others that you know of?
Yup pretty much what I was thinking: conservatism.GRoXERs said:
OP, I wouldn't use the term "philosophy" in this argument at all. Because philosophical realism is not at all what you think it means. Philosophical realism is the belief that reality exists independently of what we believe or do. In the more popularly used sense it refers to pragmatism and truth.
People like to debate. It's normal for people to argue with you. If you're talking about one thing the person you're talking with will generally take a differing or opposing side... If you just agree on everything then there's no conversation to be had. Is this what you're talking about?
Also I like the was Adventurous Corroded Sin thinks. It's not the 'realist' part telling you not to drink, that's the sensible part. You should also stop listening to it because it's wrong. The more you drink the happier you will become
And why switch to cheap vodka? That just perplexes me. Cheap vodka taste like poison. If you're drinking just to get drunk and don't care about the taste why not switch to box wine? You can get that stuff for under a fiver. Plus it also tastes like apple juice. Provided you drink enough of course.
philosophicalbastard said:
This one line is what makes want to find out who typed it and punch them right in the face.
If something bad happens in the world that humans have caused or whatnot, I always managed to stumble across these words:
My response to those people: Kick rocks with no shoes on
Grow the fuck up, we been on this planet for how many years? One stupid person doing something stupid will not equal humanities demise.
I think humanity lost faith in you if something stupid makes you feel that we are all gonna kill ourselves in the end...that we lack the intellect to take care of ourselves...
One incident =/= Man kind
Shit don't piss me off much, but that shit does.
/rant
Anytime a word gets -ist tacked onto the back of it, things tend to go wrong. Reality is fine, we need to understand it to live. But dedicating oneself to "the way things are" stifles thought, becomes a tautology. Yes, money does get wasted on crazy, stupid stuff, but once in a while that stuff becomes incredibly useful. Once upon a time, realists questioned ARPANET, the Wright brothers, Electricity, etc. Heck, realists probably complained about all that stick gathering for fires. "What? Are you too good for raw meat all of a sudden? That time would be better spent groping for berries in the dark."
Sure got me pegged. Fully admit sometimes I allow my negativity to cloud my opinions and go for the road that requires less effort and dreaming, and call it realistic.
Anywho, I do agree with you about the whole NASA thing. That's why I am glad its out of bureaucratic nonsense, and has been privatized. Sorry boys and girls, but its better off in the hands of capitalism. If it means making a buck, they will get us up and out of here in no time. Greenbacks are an excellent motivator. Bureaucrats are just not motivated.
Anywho, I do agree with you about the whole NASA thing. That's why I am glad its out of bureaucratic nonsense, and has been privatized. Sorry boys and girls, but its better off in the hands of capitalism. If it means making a buck, they will get us up and out of here in no time. Greenbacks are an excellent motivator. Bureaucrats are just not motivated.
"A pessimist is what an optimist calls a realist."
-Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams, Mass Effect
Sums it up perfectly right there imo
It's all a matter of perspective
I say let them think what they think and say what they want to say as long as they don't try to force their opinion upon others (especially myself). When that occurs... well, "Houston, we have a problem."
-Gunnery Chief Ashley Williams, Mass Effect
Sums it up perfectly right there imo
It's all a matter of perspective
I say let them think what they think and say what they want to say as long as they don't try to force their opinion upon others (especially myself). When that occurs... well, "Houston, we have a problem."
The Space Program had a purpose and incentives outside of simply exploring space, it was a show of dominance to the Russians in our Space Program during the midst of the Cold War. Essentially the purpose was to show the Russians that we (still) had not only the ability but the resources to do previously unimaginable things.Kollega said:
Another point I have issue with in the first post is that he says it's a result of cynicism and loss of human faith. The second is the most easily dismissed, because his situations have nothing to do with faith in humanity. Faith in humanity should remain independent and separate of your beliefs about the success of possible space missions. Faith in humanity itself requires some personally defined idea of human nature. I really don't see where cynicism comes into the scenarios either. You haven't said that these people are dismissing compelling evidence and flying in face of logic via an appeal to tradition fallacy or stating that previous mistakes are a reason not to try something new.
Ok... answer me this: what significance would reaching Mars be when people are dying from diseases that could be cured if they could afford the medicine? Would reaching Mars stop oil from flooding into the ocean? Or improve the world economy/international relations?
It seems to me that you're more mad about the "Realists" having practical ideas judging by the examples you listed. It seems perfectly reasonable to spend money on trying to solve domestic problems than space travel, which is only really useful for scientific observation (which has its own merits, but not really unless a useful resource is found). The point is that even though something like space travel may seem important, it's not going to be of any use if Earth is in shambles.
It seems to me that you're more mad about the "Realists" having practical ideas judging by the examples you listed. It seems perfectly reasonable to spend money on trying to solve domestic problems than space travel, which is only really useful for scientific observation (which has its own merits, but not really unless a useful resource is found). The point is that even though something like space travel may seem important, it's not going to be of any use if Earth is in shambles.
People tend to focus on the most immediate problem, and tend to avoid focusing on that problem until they have no other choice (classic procrastination). As such, people would rather entertain the idea of space-travel and how awesome it would be then actually spend that money on the more immediate problems .... like starving children, our excess population growth, diseases like AIDS, the poor education systems that some areas have, the loose gun laws in America, etc. However, from what I could gather from your post, the 'realist' goes 'No, these are the real issues, not whether or not we can colonise a planet adjacent to our own, but that we are letting millions starve and millions more be oppressed by fundam,entalist regimes'. So what's the issue with a realist? They put attention back on the immediate issues? They have rational priorities? And what does the non-realist have? An adversion to actual problems? So really, the big difference is, the realist complains about issues but very few do anything, while the non-realist completely ignores real issues and does nothing. So far the realist is winning in my eyes.
Solving world hunger or curing diseases might be less 'cool' than traveling to Mars, but if I had to choose which to support, I'd support the one that benefits all of mankind over the one that sounds cool.