Delayed Gratification = slavery - Page 2 - Politics | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
ThirdTerm wrote:I think delayed gratification developed among modern humans as an acquired habit with the onset of farming.

Exactly. It's just a kind of early behaviorism - cemented in a manufactured worldview called religion - that was necessary in order to introduce a technology - agriculture.

Every technology forces humans to distort themselves and fight their own natures. And this is supremely FATAL.

We destroy our own natures, and then we go extinct. Every civilization has destroyed its own environment, but only AFTER it has destroyed its capacity to follow its instincts.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:If you are using Nietzsche's definition, then you are not applying it correctly. ...

I'm not regurgitating Nietsche here. This is a thread for posting ideas, not name-dropping. :D
addem wrote:ne would think an immaterialist (I assume that's the same thing as an idealist) would still believe in atoms, just re-construed in an idealist framework.

I accounted for that possibility in my last post. Once again, it depends on whether they are perceptible or are by definition perceiving as to whether I would allow for them as entities with an actual existence.

addem wrote:And even in that case, you couldn't prove that the universe isn't one second old

Well, I would argue that occasionalism is corollary to immaterialism (which is the negative form of phenomenal idealism, the other name for my position), so in a sense the universe is continuously generated into existence; however, if you mean simply the origination of the earth, I am skeptical of many bold claims regarding the age of the earth as assuming theories of physical causation that are inherently fallacious.

addem wrote:created by an evil demon in such a way as to trick you into believing that it's older.

This was the argument used against Rene Descartes's conception of God (I see you are acquainted with philosophy); however, my position is immune to this critique, for my position argues for God's existence as a direct metaphysical necessity and does not allow for any other Supreme minds. Of course, you will get a chance to contend this with me soon, for in the next week or so, I will be posting my argument for Phenomenal Idealism and Trinitarian Theism.

addem wrote: So with that kind of sweeping skepticism

I would say my position combines a healthy dose of skepticism where it is needed most, but also serves as the greatest defense of what skepticism was most employed to oppose; True Religion.

B0ycey wrote:You have been taking in too much influence from your 'flat-earther' wife.

Interestingly enough, my wife's flat-earth views are something I have cautioned her on based on an appeal to our common meta-physic, for as an Idealist, I deny not only flat-earth, but also round-earth, geo v. helio-centric, and all such theories as speculative and logically flawed. What I perceive is what I perceive, the objectivity of all else resides in the Consciousness of God, and how such is constructed in His Mind is something I could never fully verify. Her response to this is that some sort of model ought to be used for practical purposes, and she favors a flat-earth. I remain blissfully agnostic on the matter and don't particularly care in all honesty.

B0ycey wrote:I assume you don't accept E=mc2 then?

I tend to be critical of a lot of things that Einstein affirmed.

B0ycey wrote:Matter exists VS. Look all around you. Only the perception of matter is questionable.

You are equivocating, I do not deny percepts, objects that are sensible, I affirm that any percept (lets say, a table) is made up sensations: (i.e. browness, hardness, etc.,), but all such are reducible to mental content. What I deny when I say that I deny matter, is that which is by definition imperceptible which is what is implied in the philosophical definition of matter: "self-existent, philosophically basic, epistemological irreducible, neither perceiving or perceived, and eternal" I deny the existence of this specific. I also deny physical causation, for one cannot infer a necessary relationship from observed correlations between percepts.

Please do not assume my position is so simple and silly as "you deny what we all experience." You would be gravely mistaken.
MistyTiger wrote:@QatzelOk What kind of instant gratification is healthy? I cannot think of any at the moment. :?:

We live in civilization. This makes 'imagining a healthy relationship with nature' extremely difficult.

Zoo animals are punished when they exhibit perfectly healthy instinctive behavior. This is called 'training' and it warps these animals in ways that 1. make them totally dependent on the zookeepers, and 2. make them unhealthy and neurotic.
QatzelOK wrote:Middle of the Road might seem like a safe position, but it's more like delaying having an opinion. This can be a terrible strategy with terrible consequences.

It also creates a dysfuntional break between your natural feelings and your course of action.

This is very true, I agree. Most likely you are describing your own personal experience.

I hope you leave your comfort zone some day, Qatz. It's time to diverge from the Middle Road already. You can do it!

Pleasure to provide some therapy. You can always count on me.

MistyTiger wrote:@QatzelOk What kind of instant gratification is healthy? I cannot think of any at the moment. :?:

I vote masturbation, exercise and making fun of fellow PoFoites. All good fun everyone can enjoy!
@danholo Good examples, actually. +1

@QatzelOk Can you be any more oblique and vague? That was basically a non-answer disguised as an answer. You don't have an exact personal opinion on instant gratification, do you? Who knew that I could stump the great philosopher Qatzel? :hmm:

I'm an atheist. You don't have to be a Christian t[…]

It's also not been great for them. But generaliz[…]

Salma Hayek: Harvey Weinstein Is My Monster Too

I can’t believe Venus doesn’t have a moon. And acc[…]