• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Fear of death is irrational

P A said:
Lolwut? "Research shows that" people's lives tend to suck more, become less enjoyable overall, and get increasingly depressing after the age of 17.

Next time you'd like to make vague allusions to scientific validity, try finding something resembling a reference, pl0x. ;)
Click to expand...

my apologies- this doesn't begin til 47. life sucks until then i guess ;0



Smile_graph.jpg


Age%20and%20happiness%20-%20The%20U-bend%20of%20life%20-%20The%20Economist%20-%20Slover%20Linett%20Blog.JPG

article-1252996-086D29FE000005DC-920_468x239.jpg
 
^Not to be too much of a Debbie Downer, but you have to keep in mind that there a lot of potential confounds re. the so-called "Greatest Generation," and, to a lesser extent, the Baby Boomers as well. They seem to possess distinctly hardier dispositions than their progeny (i.e., Gen-X, Gen-Y, net generation, &c.). By the time we're geriatric, every old fart will more than likely be just as fucking miserable as everyone else.
 
so far for me 30's > infancy> 20's > teens.

i measure it with a piece of string to maintain accuracy and scientific legitimacy. decades sort of cycle. kinda of like the star trek films, every even one is shit.... or is that odd... nah even... whatever, i dread the forties.
 
i won't be one of the miserable ones.
lol but seriously i think that's sooo damn unknowable given how fast the world changes (relative to human aging) today; thank god for tech and globalization (talk about the 'roaring 20's' or other 'renaissances' past.. maybe blind optimism but i think the information age will see change that'll make all the past "turbulent" periods of growth seem tame in comparison)

(also would be interesting to see how the above 'u bend' changed over the past century)
 
L2R said:
so far for me 30's > infancy> 20's > teens.

i measure it with a piece of string to maintain accuracy and scientific legitimacy. decades sort of cycle. kinda of like the star trek films, every even one is shit.... or is that odd... nah even... whatever, i dread the forties.
Click to expand...
i'm 29, and am waiting for this fear of the 30's i'm supposed to be getting (or even some hint of psychological novelty to the fact my age will be a multiple of 10; some of you bluelighters don't know what it's like to live w/ the imperial system...but cannot muster any damn i didn't have for any other past birthdays)
 
take it from me, the best is yet to come. thirties fkn rock.
 
but only if you're into hard work and responsibility


*fapfapfap*
 
L2R said:
take it from me, the best is yet to come. thirties fkn rock.
Click to expand...

30's only rock because of the delusion surpassed from the 20's; which is the realization of personal idiocy from the teens.

the 40's: after that second/third Saturn return(quarter/mid life crisis) it is usually pretty good.
 
i think that's^ in response to me, but i have no idea what you mean. it's clearly written in english tho lol, can you dumb it down more? my astronomy-fu is weak.
/astronomy, astrology, same thing right?
 
is that the p&s equivalent of cep's 'alternative theories' thread?

just playing around pip, sure you can guess how i feel about auras and planetary alignments :)
 
ego fears death.

but becoming part of infinity is nothing to scoff at.

irrespective i won't waste my life through war or hate
 
ego fears death - and man's proper role (from the perspective of an individual*) is to maximize ego.
this "becoming part of infinity" tripe is something i don't understand; it's always spoken in a way as if sacrificing one's ego were a height higher than realizing and expanding one's ego. Probably why I, as a proponent of certain, specific uses of the stronger 'hallucinogenic'** psychoactives, always take issue w/ both assertations and praises of "ego dissoluiton". If I take cid or mushies, there's one of two reasons: recreation, or personal growth. the former is a fun 'entertainment' type of thing, akin to alcohol; ie, low-doses with friends and/or in party/festive settings. the latter is a very uncommon occurence for most anyone, sadly, but is of much usage if done properly

*individual men pursuing individual egos benefit mankind as a whole
**i've never encountered a "hallucinogen". closest i've seen was a vivid closed-eye hallucination, that i had complete control over, on super-high dosage mda. i've never seen anything in the 'hallucination' dept on the classic hallucinogens, despite having taken doses that 'should' have been multiple times higher than where most claim these things.. one stupid experience where i didn't understand how to dose syrian rue w/ my mushrooms led to what i can easily call "ego dissolution" - it was an utter waste of a trip until it came somewhat back to reality, and even during that i did not experience 'hallucinations' that i can recall (to be fair, an hour or two of that was mush that i cannot integrate enough to attempt a description at. )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
bmxxx said:
man's proper role (from the perspective of an individual*) is to maximize ego.

*individual men pursuing individual egos benefit mankind as a whole
Click to expand...

Ah, there's that good ol' Randian Kool-Aid again! Even sans the unsavory capitalistic individualism, one need only notice the weird insistence upon exclusively masculine subjective pronouns. =D
 
yeah my bad, disregard anything i may have to say because i like rand. whatever dude.


Happy Holidays P&S :)
 
He isn't asking you to be disregarded, that's you disregarding the argument :\
You can look at trends of workforce labor relative to its pay since the 70's and see it declining rapidly. Or look to the '08 crash. Or you could simply put it in terms of a family, imagine I don't know, your dad solely looking after himself, his needs and wants. Surely you'll picture a dysfunction within that family system.
 
disregarding what argument? I'm not seeing what part of my points were addressed, just his typical implication that i'm ridiculous-by-association because i like rand. Worst part of coming to P&S is that bullshit :/

(on the note of selfishness and friends/family, that's not the way that I see it and neither does rand. PPL routinely make that false-implication that disliking altruism, and especially disliking state-sanctioned(ie forced) altruism, means one should not / will not help others. That's not the case and is very routinely a false/strawman ppl spread to denigrate the idea of selfishness-as-virtue / rational self-interest. I'll admit that it lends itself to misunderstanding, but ppl's refusal to acknowledge these very very important differences, when presented with further explanations that clarify these things, points to more than misunderstanding ie to intentionally making false/strawman statements ie ayn rand wouldn't give a dying person a sip of water, and other such nonsense)
 
sorry i edited while you posted ;P but yes i addressed the idea of family / 'non-contractual' relations in my edit :]
 
bmxxx said:
disregarding what argument? I'm not seeing what part of my points were addressed, just his typical implication that i'm ridiculous-by-association because i like rand. Worst part of coming to P&S is that bullshit :/

(on the note of selfishness and friends/family, that's not the way that I see it and neither does rand. PPL routinely make that false-implication that disliking altruism, and especially disliking state-sanctioned(ie forced) altruism, means one should not / will not help others. That's not the case and is very routinely a false/strawman ppl spread to denigrate the idea of selfishness-as-virtue / rational self-interest. I'll admit that it lends itself to misunderstanding, but ppl's refusal to acknowledge these very very important differences, when presented with further explanations that clarify these things, points to more than misunderstanding ie to intentionally making false/strawman statements ie ayn rand wouldn't give a dying person a sip of water, and other such nonsense)
Click to expand...

It is not fallacious to illustrate an abstraction while asking a question in its relation to your own perspective of how the abstraction will play out. If anything it's a lazy dialectical question. Sure it could be in the better self-interest of the father to spend thousands of dollars for the health of his child. But I think you'll agree this is an exaggerated account of beneficial self-interest. What if the father likes to do drugs all the time while keeping his family healthy. The underlining assumption here is that restraint is not going to be self-interested. I never said that Rand's theory lacked all empathy although I think she's a shitty writer...And a shitty person :D

I never said that the self-interested benefactors of the crash of '08 had poor family lives or didn't possess the quality of guilt.
I never said that managers of business with declining labor wages had bad families or didn't feel guilty.

Though, I did say these appear to be the realities of self-interested centers of capitalism and subsequently Rand's theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top