I know this board is full of roleplaying teenagers, but I've

>>19190692

On another occasion, I was waiting outside a supermarket with a friend while he spoke on the phone. My mind wandered and I again slipped into the meditative state I'm prone to adopt. I wasn't looking at anything in particular, but I was facing the parking lot. A man and a girl were walking away from us in the distance, and the man glanced back in my direction for a second, drawing my gaze to him. Almost immediately after, he stopped and turned around with a look of frightened confusion, before his girlfriend pulled him along, not noticing his sudden agitation.

>>19190692
>>19190719
You're pretty hot to bi-curious guys.

>>19190719

The last and most recent occurrence was last week. I was walking through the city with a friend and stopped at a shop to pick something up. They didn't have what I needed, so I told my friend that I'd have to double back and get it at another shop. She said she'd wander around the shops on the main street, where there were lots of singers and performers entertaining tourists and shoppers, while she waited for me and told me to ring her when I was back.

I got what I needed and started to head back to the main street. As I walked I found my mind withdrawing into that meditative state again, and I let my feet carry me without any intended direction. I wandered far from the main street and found myself down a back street. I eventually came to a small shop and walked in, where I found my friend buying cigarettes. She asked me how I knew she was there, and I lied and said I'd seen her going down that back street from a distance. In truth I just let my feet carry me there, but I couldn't say that to her without seeming crazy. I'm not sure how much she believed me, because she nervously joked about me being a little spooky.

>>19190735

The first guy definitely wasn't looking at me like that.

How exactly do you slip into a meditative state and what does it feel like? Seems you have a power. Use it to your advantage next time you see someone in awe of you.

>>19190809

It's difficult to explain. I begin by thinking about how much human beings amaze me - specifically, for instance, our capacity to derive meaning from the things around us.

Man is the only creature on earth sensible of the beauty, symmetry and elegance of the things around him. How do we derive these qualities, which are in of themselves invisible, from the visible world? Even more amazingly, man can somehow transfer these qualities from the eyes to the mind, and embody them in purposes, actions and conduct.

As I consider these qualities and the influence they have on us, my thought eventually stops, or becomes non-verbal. Sometimes I lose awareness of where I am and don't see the world around me. I feel a sense of complete calmness and reassurance.

This might not make very much sense, it isn't easy to put into words.

File: 1491019662159.jpg (15KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x360px

>>19190872
So, you just think about a bunch of bullshit and you gain powers? Surely these things aren't just weird coincidences or events then. Surely your sophistry and entry level new age bullshit puts you at one with the universe and you become an enlightened being.

This fucking board, man. I'm dying.

>>19190884

New age? It's an observation made by Cicero in De Officiis and is derived from the Platonist epistemological methodology. It's traditional philosophy. No doubt you are a far more accomplished and profound thinker than Cicero or Plato.

I never said anything about powers either, just that these thoughts are a source of astonishment and reassurance to me.

>>19190901
>New age? It's an observation made by Cicero in De Officiis and is derived from the Platonist epistemological methodology. It's traditional philosophy.
Nope. Most of what you said was pure, grade A bullshit and I'd be happy to pick it apart if you like.
>No doubt you are a far more accomplished and profound thinker than Cicero or Plato.
Of course I am. If I was living in their time period, of course not. But I have the advantage of living in an age that has quite a few years on them and lets me access knowledge from all over the world. There have been quite a lot of advancements in philosophy since then and we know shit they could hardly dream of. Just like Saint Augustine was a great mind for his time, but today his arguments for god and philosophy is heavily debunked kindergarten theology.
>I never said anything about powers either, just that these thoughts are a source of astonishment and reassurance to me.
You did. You implied that this meditative trance is some kind of force and aided you in finding your friend. You did not just say it was astonishment and reassurance, you downright made the claim that this state led to weird things happening. Which is funny considering how invalid and nonsensical the thoughts are to begin with.

>>19190923

>Nope. Most of what you said was pure, grade A bullshit and I'd be happy to pick it apart if you like.

What do you mean 'nope'? Cicero did make that observation.

". Nor does it indicate any feeble force of nature and of reason, that of all animals man alone has a sense of order, and decency, and moderation in action and in speech. Thus no other animal feels the beauty, elegance, symmetry, of the things that he sees; while by nature and reason, man, transferring these qualities from the eyes to the mind, considers that much more, even, are beauty, consistency, and order to be preserved in purposes and acts, and takes heed that he do nothing indecorous or effeminate, and still more, that in all his thoughts and deeds he neither do nor think anything lascivious. From these elements the right, which is the object of our inquiry, is composed and created;"

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/cicero-on-moral-duties-de-officiis

>Of course I am.

You're an idiot. Even if we were to allow your laughable proposition that you know better simply by being born in a different period of time, you'd still be an idiot. Why? Because you claim to know better than two men whose works you've never read. You can't say you know better without having read them.

>You did. You implied that this meditative trance is some kind of force and aided you in finding your friend.

I never said the two were connected, you made that inference. In fact, I never claimed to know anything about these occurrences at all, and asked in the OP for someone who might know better than me to help me figure it out. My state of mind was a common factor in each case, so I mentioned it.

>>19190964
>You're an idiot. Even if we were to allow your laughable proposition that you know better simply by being born in a different period of time,
Things that were profound ages ago are common knowledge today and we know more. Take basic mathematics today. Back then algebta was once the most brilliant mathematical idea and today it bores kids in classrooms. There were cults based around geometry and basic shapes and this stuff was held as secret knowledge and today everyone learns about it. Same for philosophy. Older ideas get improved upon as we learn more and understand more about things.

Same for the shit you said. Some old guy saying a thing does not make that thing automatically wise. Ususally it is, but not always. Like my Saint Augustine example. In his time he was wise. Hell, if I was living in those times I may be convinced. But his arguments today have been examined and are not all that deep now. Some of his stuff holds up, but not much.

As for that mindset being totally not implied to be mystical, it was. And you did imply it. But let's break down that idea of yours and why your entry level understanding of reality isn't opening your third eye.

>>19191022

I'm not interested in your opinions about books you haven't read and know nothing about, save your time.

>>19191022
>I begin by thinking about how much human beings amaze me - specifically, for instance, our capacity to derive meaning from the things around us.

Meaning in what way exactly. One of the few parts that makes sense and isn't absurd just from being rather general. But it is rather odd to find this amazing when it is a simple side effect of our larger brain. It is a byproduct of our biology. In that case anything can be as deeply profound.

>Man is the only creature on earth sensible of the beauty, symmetry and elegance of the things around him.
Beauty? Maybe. Symmetry? No. Other animals know that to. Whether it is bees, ants, or pretty much any animal that makes nests. Even for natural selection and breeding most thinks have to take into account at least physical beauty (which is all finding someone hot is, finding them to be a good breeding partner). You may mean it in some deeper way, but it isn't really true.

>How do we derive these qualities, which are in of themselves invisible,
Wrong. Beauty, symmetry, and elegance all relate to aesthetics. They are far from invisible. In fact, if they were invisible that would defeat the point entirely.

>Even more amazingly, man can somehow transfer these qualities from the eyes to the mind, and embody them in purposes, actions and conduct.
Any animal with eyes can see them. And this right here also blows away the previous statement about them being invisible. Second, beauty and the other qualities you mentioned does not have much effect on actions. If you saw the symmetry of parallel lines are you gonna blow all over yourself and be moved to some purpose, action, or conduct?

File: 1469357880004-int.jpg (244KB, 1846x1212px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1846x1212px

>>19191022

>let me tell you about these writers I've never read

>>19191051
Second, what Cicero said is a lot better thought out than what you said when you added that the concepts were invisible and cut out exactly what kind of actions a person may be moved to upon seeing beauty (effeminate, lascivious, etc). You fucked up what Cicero said harder than people fucked up carpe diem or memento mori with #yolo.

So, I don't have to read Cicero's entire book to see that what you said was a watered down and piss poor adulteration of it.

>>19191062
You must have not read them either givem how shit you portrayed what he said. There is a lot wrong with what you said, while in what Cicero said he was only wrong about the whole animals having no sense of order and all.

What you said was a lot more fucked up than that. I don't have to read the whole book to compare the two quotes and see how badly you fucked it up.

>>19191051

This is the last response I'll make, because I'm not wasting my time arguing with you. You have no idea what you're talking about.

>it is a simple side effect of our larger brain. It is a byproduct of our biology.

Consciousness is related to brain size. Interesting.

>No. Other animals know that to. Whether it is bees, ants, or pretty much any animal that makes nests.

I said 'sensible of', meaning conscious of, aware of. Animals are not aware of the order in anything, they simply exhibit it. Symmetry and order are ideas we use to describe patterns in the material world. Those patterns, and the ideas we use to describe them, are not the same things. What I referred to is the ability yo associate those ideas with those patterns. Animals cannot do that, because they don't have ideas in the sense we do.

>Wrong. Beauty, symmetry, and elegance all relate to aesthetics. They are far from invisible. In fact, if they were invisible that would defeat the point entirely.

You don't understand what I refer to here because you aren't familiar with the material. I was referring to the ideas of beauty and symmetry, not the things which we associate them with.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

>Any animal with eyes can see them.

There is a difference between 'seeing' something, and being cognizant of what it is that you are seeing. For example, you can see the words 'πάθει μαθος', but you don't know what they mean until you translate them. What animal has ever been observed to stop and admire a landscape or a flower, and then make representations of those things? They do not have the capacity to admire, because that requires reflection.

>Second, beauty and the other qualities you mentioned does not have much effect on actions.

Speak for yourself.

>>19191067

It's you that doesn't understand. See my above post regarding the theory of forms. Beauty, symmetry and order are ideas we use to describe patterns in the material world. Ideas are invisible and intangible.

Cicero read Plato and as a Stoic adhered to his theory of forms. You, having read neither, are totally unaware of their epistemological methodology.

>>19191130
No. What you did was backtrack. All I did was shit on Cicero saying animals don't understand order. That was the only fault with what HE said. What you said was very different and you dodged all over to justify it. You want to pretend like what you and Cicero said are the same thing when they are not. What you said is what I took issue with. Because what you said had far more issues than what Cicero said. So, don't try to defend what he said in your response to me ripping apart what you said like calling visible traits invisible.

That's intellectually dishonest as fuck and you know it.

>>19191155
As an example, you took the concept of beauty and tried to play it off like you meant the theory of forms, when you then went on in the next sentence to talk about how we view them with the eye.

Either you are talking about an abstract concept or a physical quality. You smashed both together in a half assed Frankenphilosophy and then try to damage control by defending what Cicero said the argument was against what you said. When what you said was the grossly incompetent understanding of even the single quote you posted. I can see now why you think coincidences and daydreams are mystical trances when your comprehension of things is so bad.

>>19191155

Show me the difference in what I and he said. Certainly, he said it better, but there is no substantial difference in meaning. I added that the ideas were invisible because Cicero took Plato's theory of forms as a given and didn't mention it in every passage. You have to be familiar with Stoic and Platonic philosophy to understand the context of what he says, and you didn't have that context, so I added it for you.

You don't even know what Cicero said. For example, you say here >>19191067 that

>"Cicero said (...) exactly what kind of actions a person may be moved to upon seeing beauty (effeminate, lascivious, etc)."

Cicero in fact says the very opposite. He says that it is awareness of beauty and order that prevents us from such actions:

"beauty, consistency, and order to be preserved in purposes and acts, and takes heed that he do nothing indecorous or effeminate, and still more, that in all his thoughts and deeds he neither do nor think anything lascivious."

Not only have you not read Cicero, it seems you are actually incapable of reading him.

>>19191182
I have laid out the differences already.

Second, that was poor wording on my part. Not me lacking comprehension. It's late here. My point with that comment was that he actually mentions actions that relate to beauty whereas you said some vague bullshit.

So there was quite a difference in meaning. If I read what Cicero said, I'd wholeheartedly agree except for the order part. If I read what you said, I'd do exactly what I did and call you out for messing up key points of the idea and watering it down to the point of being unrecognizable. You were the yolo to his carpe diem. Where he says something deep and insightful you bungle up physical qualities and abstract concepts. Because even if it was poor wording like what I did, your idea was still a butchered version of what he said.

>>19191178

As an example, you took the concept of beauty and tried to play it off like you meant the theory of forms, when you then went on in the next sentence to talk about how we view them with the eye.

I didn't say we view the ideas with the eye. Didn't you just complain a few posts back about me saying those qualities were invisible? Can you see invisible things with the eye? I said we view patterns in the material world with the eye and associate them with the ideas of beauty, symmetry and elegance.

>Either you are talking about an abstract concept or a physical quality.

My post was about how I was amazed at how we were able to associate abstract concepts with physical formations. It's standard theory of forms and only seems a frankenphilosophy to to you because you don't understand the theory in the slightest.

You have the reading skills of a pubescent child. How old are you?

>>19191197

You haven't explained any difference at all - you've just repeatedly derided my wording.

Explain, precisely, the difference of meaning in what we said.

>>19191198
>I didn't say we view the ideas with the eye. Didn't you just complain a few posts back about me saying those qualities were invisible? Can you see invisible things with the eye? I said we view patterns in the material world with the eye and associate them with the ideas of beauty, symmetry and elegance.
I know you can't see ideas with the eye. But your post was so generalized and butchered that it seemed like that was what you were getting at.

But, hey, I'll even admit that I fucked up and read you wrong. If you really meant it that way maybe it just came across wrong and seeing so much retarded shit on /x/ made me jump the gun and assume you were saying something way off.

I mean, it's clear either way that I like his views on it better than yours which seem a bit watered down, but we could be talking at cross ends here.

>>19191216

What happened was that you read my post without knowing the context of what I said and without having read the works and concepts I was referencing. With some context provided, it makes more sense to you. This is why I told you from the beginning that it was silly to dismiss things you hadn't read.

I'm glad you acknowledged you misread me. I thought talking with you was a waste of my time, because I assumed you were only interested in arguing for arguments sake and not in learning, but I consider it time well-spent if you've seriously thought about what we've been debating.

>>19191242
I've read the works and understand the concepts. At least other stoic writings and on platonism. I did not read the particular passage you quoted. I just didn't associate what you said with anything even close to them. Like I said, after reading a lot of shit on here it's easy to jump the gun and assume you mean some dumb shit rather than just referencing a philosophical work.

File: IMG_3168.jpg (66KB, 471x750px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 471x750px

>>19190762
A few times I've had people say that I can see the "real person within the clouds." Maybe your meditation honed your inner vision too much, though, such that you unceremoniously invaded the headspace of your subjects.

>>19190964
>>19191022

Gentlemen, please. Philosophy is for faggots who aren't any good at real life or accomplishing anything of value.

Then again tripcodes are for faggots too.

Here's the bottom line: you're both faggots.

>>19191252

What stoic texts have you read?

Also, you ought to read Plato himself, instead of secondary works on Platonism. Books are like food - some are of little nutritional worth and can be instantly swallowed. Others need to be chewed, and some need to be chewed and digested. Secondary works are the already chewed and digested remains of the original, and of little benefit to you. It's interesting and beneficial to see what others thought of those works, but only after you have read the originals for yourself.

>>19191278

>Philosophy is for faggots who aren't any good at real life or accomplishing anything of value

That itself is a philosophy.

>>19191278
Dude, what? Are you twelve or a dockhand?

>>19191312
I'm a computer scientist / engineer who has no patience for your timewasting bullshit. Your whole life revolves around drinking Pabst and bullshitting your way through your life. Mine revolves around making useful things and accomplishing tangible goals.

>>19191317

Define useful.

File: 49b9c8604983f67d2f4cf49dab970d6af7e13f70f800d01f908a660b623ff31b_1.jpg (105KB, 3209x820px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 3209x820px

>>19191317

>>19191327
See, this is why you'll never move out of your parent's basement. Like a jew, you ask totally unnecessary questions and make the simplest things into complicated things.

>>19191329
I like that.

>>19191334

I'm a teacher, not a basement dweller.

It was clever of you not to answer my question, because by doing so you would have been engaging in philosophy. You philosophize all the time without realizing it.

>>19191344
I'm not sure what your point is. Mine is that I didn't waste four to eight years of my life and a hundred thousand dollars getting a degree in "drinking beer and shitting out my retarded thoughts on the universe."

>>19191355

>I didn't waste four to eight years of my life and a hundred thousand dollars getting a degree in "drinking beer and shitting out my retarded thoughts on the universe."

Neither did I.

How have your beliefs worked out for you? I think philosophy has improved my life.

Are you generally happy? I am. Are you ever unhappy? I never am. Do you ever get what you don't want, or not get what you do want? This never happens to me thanks to how I've educated myself. Do you ever experience anger, annoyance, distress or frustration? I don't.

File: tmp_21032-size-6-7-81584596720.jpg (47KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 900x900px

>>19190692
Hey anon I think you dropped this on your way to yet another Plato circlejerk on /lit/

Please GTFO no one cares about your dated philosophy garbage yes I have read the Greeks no these experiences are not indicative of anything supernatural yes you can stop masturbating to your own ego no you are not worth punctuation yes this thread is garbage no your vapid classmates will not find this interesting thanks for playing please seriously get the fuck out and never come back

File: 1470949867569.gif (2MB, 425x550px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 425x550px

>>19190692
>>19190719
>>19190762

Well I enjoyed reading about it. Thank you, anon

Here's a supernatural quandary for the ages

What if every single philosophy student an exact clone of the same insufferable windbag who cant stand to not incessantly ramble about Plato for five minutes? Why have I met OP literally a hundred times in different flabby chortling bodies? Why are they always paying full tuition at small liberal arts colleges and audibly chuckling at their books in campus coffee shops?

I think it's a secret government conspiracy

>>19191467
>>19191435

>He probably wears a funny hat and says silly things lmao

You sure showed me. How will I ever recover from this?

>>19191478

You won't, because you took out a 130k loan for a useless degree

You will literally never recover from this

>>19191481

My degree wasn't in philosophy, and it cost me nothing.

How have your belief's worked out for you? I think philosophy has improved my life.

Are you generally happy? I am. Are you ever unhappy? I never am. Do you ever get what you don't want, or not get what you do want? This never happens to me thanks to how I've educated myself. Do you ever experience anger, annoyance, distress or frustration? I don't.

>>19190872
>Man is the only creature on earth sensible of the beauty,
blablablahumainatureblablablablablasospecialbeingsblablablaamazingpeopleblablabla
I'd unironically beat the living shit out of you if you ever pull off that shit in front of me that will cure your transition mental illness nigger your the all dancing all singing shit of the earth you dellusional fuck

>>19191489

I am not entertaining your narcissistic garbage beyond this post.

I am happy literally 100% of the time. Even when I am experiencing hardship. If you never experience any form of hardship, you are treading water, not challenging yourself and wasting your life. But this isn't about me, and I know you only asked to have an excuse to talk about yourself. Because you're a narcissist. Do you notice how often you used the word "I"? This is textbook narcissism.

Just as with every other clone of you I've met in my many years of tolerating the same exact insufferable, pedantic word vomit, nothing you have said is remarkable or revolutionary, it's all just extremely boring and tiresome, but you persist in your delusion of believing that everybody around you is constantly and profoundly interested in everything you have to say. I assure you this is not the case.

X is supposed to be fun and interesting, and this thread, along with anything that you would conceivably reply is in every way the antithesis of that. Im hiding this thread now. I don't care about your response. I've already heard it a thousand times. Please leave this board.

>>19191278
This. Thank you op you gave me cancer
Also stop doing drugs.

>>19191543

You said philosophy is useless, so I asked how your own beliefs benefitted you and explained how philosophy has proven useful to me. That makes me a narcissist?

>>19191344
Haha philosophy aka mental masturbation. is tottaly real science bro GG

>>19191543

What makes a science 'real'? How do you distinguish between a science that is 'real' and one that is not? Why is a 'real' science better than one that is not 'real'?

>>19191572

Was meant for

>>19191556

>>19191551
Not him but you obviously over stayed your welcome here i dont care what you do at this point wear a cape and call yourself philosphy man whatever just go you dont sound any better than the kangz with mind powers.

>>19191528

Would you hit a blind person for bumping into you?

A blind person is unwillingly deprived of sight, so any rational person would excuse them. You say I'm delusional and deprived of the ability to perceive reality. Is that not far worse than being blind? And yet you'd hit me on account of it. That says more about you than it does about me.

>>19191590

Would you prefer vampire roleplay threads?

If what I'm saying is so ridiculous then it ought to be easy for you or anyone else to demonstrate how wrong I am.

>>19191579
Well whatever that cant be quantified and weighted isn't real science it leaves much room for doubt and speculation and that's why it sucks you wouldnt know any better before nor after your science philosophy implies a lot of ego thats why it cant be objective and reliable every other day a dozen school of thaughts pops up and cintradicts everything that came before it leaves you dancing and jumping and switching from one foot to the other like the monkeys you are for the entertainment and delight of the scientific crowd

>>19191615

Concepts and thoughts can be quantified and measured, that's what formal logic is for.

>every other day a dozen school of thaughts pops up and cintradicts everything that came before it

That's how science works too, old theories are scrapped in favour of newer ones based on new evidence all the time. Scientists and doctors originally believed smoking tobacco was good for your health, they have since discovered that the opposite it true. That's what science is all about.

>>19191605
Oh totally they are so much fun
Prove you wrong about what ?? Your one sided personal expérience that i wasnt part of ?? That dosent sound easy at all
Once again u wrong lol
>>19191599
Yeah i'd reck his shit good that will teach him to buy a dog next time fucking blind people shouldnt be allowed out to begin with

>>19191631

I never claimed to know anything about my experiences other than that they happened.

They have nothing to do with my philosophy that I can see, but it seems to be my philosophy that you have a problem with. Why don't you explain exactly how my philosophy is wrong?

>>19191630
No it cant because the balance is flawed in fact logic is still struggling to find itself a deffinition can you believe that ?? You say no your driving us back to ancient greece where two would sit and speculate all day long about how many teeth a horse has instead of walking up to the fucking horse and count them like take this phrase "how are you??" a greek and his fellow greek buddy would freeze on that for a day instead by replying "fine" they will go what did you mean by "you" "define the self" see how cancerous your people are its counter productive
in science old dosent mean wrong by necessity you can still get shit done its just much slower and costly or whatever compared to the new polished méthode
It goes fiorward thats technology
Its not a dick swinging contest where a new big name comes up with a philosophy and starts everything from scratch you go nowhere like this philosophy is nowhere its self destructing and out of touch with reality people dont care it only matter in your mind

>>19191656

No formal logic is pretty certain. Mathematics wouldn't function without it.

Do you really think your beliefs are modern? Your belief system is as old as mine. Epicurus and Lucretius said everything you have already. Materialism and Empiricism have been around for thousands of years.

>>19191637
Your are wrong philosophy is good you have to detache yourself a little bit your not a philosophy your story is utter bullshit listen i hate to burst your bubble actually i like it but whatever this isnt about me
But you are not spécial no amount of pretending will fix that you
either lower the way you perceive your ego or stop tripping on whatever your on or straight up sign for a MC.mental institution full membership.TM R C

>>19191666
Thats a non issue to me frankly its just entertainment Why you have to be mad ??
What is right is right forever dosent matter if its been here since adam and eve

>>19191678

My story is 100% true.

I don't think I'm special in any way either.

>>19191690
Yea thats like your opinion
your cancer you cant stand to be called out on your BS

>>19191689

I'm not mad, I'm just proving you wrong.

You claimed my views are untrue because they are outdated, so I pointed out that your views are just as old - not because I believe age has any bearing on truth, but to show how inconsistent you are.

>>19190692
Wow i believe you Op you totally mind controlled me into buying your BS

>>19191700

It makes no difference to me whether you 'call me out' or not, your incapable of making a coherent point. Even if you could string a coherent post together, it still wouldn't make a difference to me, because I'm not here to convince anyone, I'm here to see if anyone can help me understand it.

>>19190762
She got nervous because she knew you lied. They are more perceptive, even more than you are. Even the most basic bitch.

>>19191730

I know that women are much better at prevarication than men and that they see through it more easily, and I knew she would likely see through it, but I'd rather she thought I was telling a white lie than than think I'm crazy.

i liked your original posts OP.

too bad this board exists almost entirely for people to argue with each other about who is the bigger retard and whose life is objectively better. you wasted your time coming here. like bringing a fine painting to the zoo and encouraging chimpanzees to fling shit at it.

>>19191329
Why are you such an attention seeking faggot on an anonymous role playing board?

>>19190692
That's not paranormal, seems like a mental health issue.

>>19190884
My filter is getting thicc. Off you go!

>>19192666
No ur de retord
Fite me