People are essentially and fundamentally playful.
Maybe I like this idea because I make games for a living, but maybe not.
Maybe this is what the whole universe is about?
The universe exists entirely out of itself. There is no cause of it happening. It just is. It exists to exist.
The world is playful in its essence, because it is like a play, no concrete reason for it. This is the Zen standpoint on the meaning of our universe. We people, spawn out of the universe, we are part of it. So our purpose is the purpose of the universe.
There was a Dutch theorist Johan Huizinga who wrote a book called Homo Ludens, which means “Man the Player”.
It discusses the importance of the play element of culture and society. Huizinga makes it clear in the foreword of his book that he means the play element OF culture, and not the play element IN culture. Much can be said about play ‘in’ culture, like it’s a method of socializing, learning and bullshit like that. But wonder about the playfulness OF culture! Why does it exist? Why do people exist at all!?
The universe is playing a game. Culture exists to add more to this game. It is just more fun for it to be. In the same way we exist, because it is more fun for us to exist. It is wrong to think that this is a game being played with us or against us. For example the struggle for survival in nature. There are no winners and losers here. As I wrote, it is just there to be playful. There is no prize. Each moment of the play is there just to be there, and to be experienced.
People like to think of themselves as being separate from nature. That the world existed here by itself for thousands of years and suddenly here we come! Watch out world! Now we’re gonna do some serious damage haha!
This is just human selfishness and ego. We are nothing different than nature. There is no difference between a human and an apple.
Alan Watts liked to say “We call it an apple tree because the tree apples. And the earth peoples.”
Just as an apple tree grows apples, the Earth grows people. Human beings are a function of the current state of the universe. People are not separate from the world, they are an outgrowth of it. There is no division. We can say as Michael Jackson used to say WE ARE THE WORLD.
We are the world looking at itself. That’s why you come into existence. You are here to experience and just experiencing is in its essence playful. Because there is no real reason for it, it’s just for the fun of it.
Some of the definitions of “play”:
– To deal or behave carelessly or indifferently
– Activity engaged in for enjoyment or recreation
– A move or an action in a game
– Freedom or occasion for action
– Movement or space for movement
– To perform
– To pretend
– To flirt
The existence of the universe is an opportunity for movement and for freedom, and that makes it fun. Why are you consciously experiencing the world? It is just an opportunity for the universe to experience itself. You are the eye of the universe, looking at itself, from a point of view of a human on a little blue planet. That makes it even more interesting and fun.
Homo Ludens is a terrific idea. Everything we as people do is playful. Even seriousness is just there for fun. Also pain and other horrible things. It is like in the story of Adam and Eve. We gained knowledge of what is good and evil, so we became godlike, because from that point we had free will, we could choose on which side to be. Isn’t that fun!? I always cheer for the villains in movies. I always hope that Darth Vader wins or that the replicants won’t die in Blade Runner. It’s like this with pain, it’s there so we can have a choice. So we have more knowledge of the possibilities. That makes it more interesting.
There isn’t a real meaning to it all. There is no real meaning assigned to pain.
Christians like to say that it is noble, that pain is a spiritual path. Bollocks. I don’t even feel like explaining how stupid this is.
Scientists like to say that pain is a defense mechanism, so that when you touch a hot oven it hurts and you remember it. Fine, but what reason is there for you to EXPERIENCE IT!? Can you imagine a robot being built with heat sensors touching an oven? Now it will produce electrical signals which will make its robot arm move away, this might be interpreted as pain. Fine. But is there any concrete reason for a conscious experiencer of this pain?
Absolutely no reason for it. So also there is absolutely no reason for your existence.
Sad? Not if you look at it like this. You are just there to be. You are a person sitting in a cinema watching the movie. It’s a roller-coaster ride, built for self-amusement…
I have to quote Bill Hicks at this point:
“The world is like a ride at an amusement park. And when you choose to go on it, you think its real because that’s how powerful our minds are. And the ride goes up and down and round and round. It has thrills and chills, and its very brightly coloured , and its very loud and its fun, for a while. Some people have been on the ride for a long time, and they begin to question – is this real, or is this just a ride? And other people have remembered, and they come back to us. They say, ‘Hey! Don’t worry, don’t be afraid, ever, because, this is just a ride…
…and we kill those people.“
So… HAVE FUN!
Good post. I always enjoy reading your “Humanities” posts.
Dear proverbial God, there we go again. You choose a specific concept and then simplify and attribute everything and anything to it.
Well, let’s start with the end. You essentially asked why does pain hurt. Why can’t our bodies inform us in a cool and professional way of potential bodily damage? Well, because people are stupid. People are irrational, unlike robots , and evolution, which selects the best units, apparently decided that those who felt pain in a negative way reacted to it in a more suitable way. Those with the privilidge of blunted or non-hurting pain just kind of died. Let’s take an example – evolution decided it doesn’t have to babysit us regarding how much we eat on the high end – and that leads to obesity, fat, overweight, sweating arses. And one would rationally think that following our instincts to create a world that’s most pleasant to live in would lead to a world where we can truly flourish? Bullshit.
As for the homo ludens theory – yes, humans are playful by nature but I would never make that my ANSWER TO LIFE (!!!). Humans are playful because back when our species evolved we didn’t have factories, science, crafts, arts.. We never forced ourselves to change the world around us, we were compelled to, albeit at a smaller level.
As for the reason of my existence – that’s one thing I will agree on. Seeking my purpose would imply my fate was designed and predestined. My only fate is dictated by the force of evolution and biology, the desires and destinations of the complicated machine I’m trying to pilot.
Good post. Hows Link-Dead coming along?
Yup. We want to play Berserker and Link Dead! The answer to all life and death.
“The universe is playing a game”
The universe doesn’t play games. It is not alive. Get over it.
“For example the struggle for survival in nature. There are no winners and losers here.”
LMGDAO. Yeah, right.
“You are the eye of the universe, looking at itself, from a point of view of a human on a little blue planet.”
You are only the eye of yourself. The universe doesn’t look back onto itself because IT IS NOT ALIVE.
“There is no real meaning assigned to pain. What reason is there for you to EXPERIENCE PAIN!?”
Pain is the precursor of bodily harm, which is the precursor of death. If you didn’t feel pain you would keep your hand on the burning stove and ultimately DIE. Which means no more play for you.
“Absolutely no reason for pain. So also there is absolutely no reason for your existence.”
The logical leap here is staggering. You need to start thinking before you post, man. Consider whether what you’re saying is physically true or not.
“You are a person sitting in a cinema watching the movie.”
Your life isn’t a movie. You can change it. If you ever went out, met some girls and got laid, you’d know that.
archont: You didn’t read my question. I didn’t ask why is there pain, but why is there conscious experience of pain. I wrote it in capital letters, but that wasn’t enough.
bigbossSNK: The universe doesn’t play games. It is not alive. Get over it.
I’m not alive?
This somehow reminds me of “If life was an MMO” jokes.
If like was an MMO, death would be when your subscription runs out!
“The universe doesn’t play games. It is not alive. Get over it.”
“I’m not alive?”
You might be alive, but the Universe as a whole isn’t. You can at least become self-correcting to the obvious.
bigbossSNK: prove to me that the universe exists without me being there and maybe we can discuss then.
Ok, here goes. If the Universe requires you to exist, the Universe will disappear the moment you die.
If this happens for you, it should happen for all humans.
Since the moment I wrote these lines, at least one out of the 6,5 billion people on the planet has died.
The Universe did not cease to exist.
The Universe does not need humans to exist.
The Universe does not need you to exist.
QED
I wonder why certain people still read this if they think they can explain everything better and always have to try to negativate the statements, but hey, that’s just me I guess.
Personally, I read this for the thrill of the kill. Honing in on your prey, seeing it’s weakness, calculating the best means of attack.
Oh, and then there’s that little notion of elucidating ignorance with knowledge. Which most people appreciate, unless they’re complete blockheads.
Avis: haha exactly. If you know you’re right and you proved it, you can’t prove it more.
bigbossSNK: That is not a proof but a claim. I would have to die to confirm that. Until then you are operating on an assumption. So you lose, now piss off.
“That is not a proof but a claim.”
It’s a valid proof based on logical reasoning. But then again, logical thinking never was your strong suit, was it, Michal?
Hmmm, I gotta stick to archont and bigbossSNK on this one.
It’s just too much theory that doesnt really have any kind of proof, and still you already ask for proof against it or else consider it fact.
Well first prove to us the universe would not exist without you, until then YOU are “operating on an assumption”.
Liked most of the other posts, but this is… rather illogical and really, really guru-like, “the tree apples and the earth peoples”, “you are like an apple”… double u, ti, ef, even scientology sounds more reasonable with their space-ships and shit.
Oh, yeah, by the way, there ARE some people that do not feel pain (malfunction of the nerves or sth) and the only ones I heard about did some really crazy shit because of this, like for example hang from needles on the wall through their skins or stepped on fire and stuff… stuff that sound fun but normal people wouldnt do. So if the “meaning of life” would be playing, then we would all NOT feel any pain, so we could play more. Why would pain help us have more fun, if your theory had any logic?
Oh yeah, and slaves in the past that lived their whole lives in misery, pain and suffering… I dont think they had a choice to “play” with life and enjoy it, so they were no apples, huh?
And the “fight for survival has no winners” thing… ummm… what? How bout… lion kills zebra? I think thats winner enough, and I dont think you’d like to “play” the role of the zebra, neither.
Hmmm… enough to this “bollocks” here, I’d prefer hearing more about the games ^^
bigbossSNK: I don’t believe in anything as fact, all is just plausible. Your proof is plausible for me, that’s all, so I refuse to take it as granted and look for more answers. Logical reasoning is not real, never will be. Go study Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and return back then.
Cosmin:
And the “fight for survival has no winners” thing… ummm… what? How bout… lion kills zebra?
The lions will eventually die too. Survival is not the answer. Where is the end of this evolutionary struggle? What is the final prize?
Well first prove to us the universe would not exist without you, until then YOU are “operating on an assumption”.
Of course it’s an assumption! I never said it is something more than a theory. At least I’m not in denial. Why do I need to prove anything to you, do whatever you want to. I’m not selling anything. I’m just presenting a world view that makes me feel good.
When you make a Jackson statment you loose credibility!
bigbossSNK isint being negetive he his just trying to explain what he thinks. If you think somone is wrong it dosen’t make you negative.
Who knows if universe is or isin’t. As long as it goes I could be a supreme being who dreams all what appens to me in life you maybe dont even exist. (I dont really belive this but it could)
Everything in this world can be prove right and wrong it only depends of your point of view and arguments.
bigbossSNK isint being negetive he his just trying to explain what he thinks. If you think somone is wrong it dosen’t make you negative.
He isn’t explaining what he thinks, cause he doesn’t think:D. He just blindly denies whatever I write that doesn’t fit his model of the world. He is negative cause he’s way too cocky for a nobody and attacks me personally.
Who knows if universe is or isin’t.
Yeah who knows, I don’t, nobody does.
“I don’t believe in anything as fact, all is just plausible.”
The physical world exists irrespective of your knowledge of it. The sooner you incorporate it in your reasoning, the sooner you’ll start making progress.
“Go study Gödel’s incompleteness theorems and return back then.”
Gödel’s theorems discuss the unavoidability of undecidable propositions within rigidly logical systems. They don’t disprove logic. Don’t propagate half truths as truths.
I’m not saying they disprove logic, you can’t do that. All I’m saying is you can’t prove everything or prove something 100%. Provide me with a tool of 100% certainty and I will blindly believe in whatever that tool proves. If there isn’t anything like that, I will continue asking questions and defining everything as plausible or bollocks.
“He just blindly denies whatever I write that doesn’t fit his model of the world”
Well, since you blatantly disregard science and logic, the basic tools of sound arguments, in favor of arbitrariness, you will naturally think I ‘m “blindly” denying your claims.
“He’s way too cocky for a nobody”
LMGDAO. You don’t even know my name. By definition, you don’t know who I am or what I’ve accomplished in my life, much less what I’m working on.
“He attacks me personally”
No, I’ve pretty much attacked everyone on this blog, and only whenever I found something they said to be illogical, or contrary to fact. Most people were cool about it eventually.
It’s fine explaining your point and such, but there’s no need for personal insults, bigbossSNK.
I am not in the habit of making personal insults. Don’t confuse my relentless assault against false arguments as personal insults.
LMGDAO. You don’t even know my name. By definition, you don’t know who I am or what I’ve accomplished in my life, much less what I’m working on.
For me you are a nobody. I have no idea who you are, except the fact that you play a lot of video games.
Don’t change the subject, I’m expecting an answer to my previous comment.
I dont know why, but this devlog always seems to be turning into a battlefield of useless discussions which will never lead to a result. Why dont we just all get along?
Okay, I know this sounds as if I would say to ancient greek philosophers “I’ll put you in this room and you dont come out until you have not settled on the main reason of our existance”, but I really think this kind of deep phylosophical discussions are nothing that our poor minds can handle, not to mention solve. We know by physical laws that the universe and we are real. And this is the world we live in, we have to understand it as it is and accept it as it is.
It has absolutely no relevance if it is an absolute reality or just our minds making it up (you matrix fans you), because that does not change a thing about all that we will experience in our lives. No matter how much you tell me there may be people that meditate and can levitate because of that, first of all I will not believe it true until the point at which I will see it or be part of it, and even if I did believe it, I know it will never be something I will be able to do or even want to do.
In fact, even the Bible says “Happiness upon the weak of spirit, because the Kingdom of Heaven will be theirs” (or similar). This means, thinking and talking about things we do not know about will automatically lead to argues, which automatically lead to…whatever, just not to happiness. Dumb people and people that dont think too much about things are happy. Hmmm, maybe it’S a paradox, since we are dumb because we’re talking about it and still not happy. See? It leads nowhere!
After all we do agree Cosmin :). That’s why I say don’t think. Proving something logically just makes you think more. It’s like falling into quick sand, the more you move the more you get stuck in it. Just take the simplest world view and be happy with it. If it doesn’t work try something different. Love doesn’t work? Try hate. Doesn’t work? Try something different. My theories lately have been really simple, cause it’s just experience. I live and I see what works and what doesn’t/ The simplest things work best.
I never feel threatened if somebody attacks me. It happens everyday, especially in outside reality. It just happens if you put yourself out there, if you don’t behave and do like one is expected to do. It’s always easier to stay comfortable. Go by a nickname and never let anybody know who you are, but that’s weak. Not my way of doing things.
“All I’m saying is you can’t prove everything or prove something 100%.”
You don’t need 100% certainty when, as you are, talking about everyday interactions or phenomena. You only need 100% certainty within the confines of the system. Science provides such certainty.
“Dumb people and people that don’t think too much about things are happy.”
There’s no exclusive causal link between thinking or not thinking and happiness. I for one am happy with my life, and ambitious enough to reach for more.
“If one idea doesn’t work try something different.”
You ‘re trying to find the solution to the question through trial and error. Or, you can just critically think about the answer for a couple of minutes and arrive at the result. Whatever floats your boat.
“Go by a nickname and never let anybody know who you are, but that’s weak. Not my way of doing things.”
I, on the other hand, will gladly divulge my identity to anyone who finds a non trivial conceptual error in my writing. In helping me become a stronger adversary, I will recognize my opponent’s merit. That’s my way of doing things.
What are your views on deja vu Michal?
Yea.
Most of your guys stuck on Michal’s ASCII-Letters. You try to find the mistake in the letters, but you should rather try to find some truth behind it.
It’s not about LOCAL phenomenons of the human being or physics. It’s about a big and complex GLOBAL system that decides about us and “plays” with us. You all have no choice! The choice was taken after the big bang or before it. But it doesn’t mean that you are a slave of it. You are a part of it. Without you, the system would be unlogical and therefore it would not exist without you. Pain has a reason for humans? No! Pain has a reason for the Universe. The reason is “play” (I think its not the right word to explain it for mostof you guys).
You only need 100% certainty within the confines of the system. Science provides such certainty.
And the system is infinite so we can never be sure… we can go all day like this, fuck it. There’s a nice book you can read called the Black Swan which reveals this mistake in thinking.
Or, you can just critically think about the answer for a couple of minutes and arrive at the result. Whatever floats your boat.
Tried it, doesn’t work, moved to something else. Maybe you’re just smarter than me, be happy with that and piss off now.
What are your views on deja vu Michal?
I don’t know, it’s fascinating. Do you ever wonder why often you remember that you remember something but you don’t actually remember the thing?? What the fuck is that? If you remember that you remember something why not just remember the damn thing! The mind is certainly not a computer.
A hack in the system!
yv3: well ‘play’ suggests that it’s fun, but there’s a whole lot more to that. That’s why I provided some definitions to expand it. But I guess some people are too stuck in their heads to actually read what is in front of them. They are just thinking how to bash me in the comments, instead of just reading.
“This is just human selfishness and ego. We are nothing different than nature. There is no difference between a human and an apple.”
Alan Watts meant that we live and die just like apples do, he didn’t quite mean to say that we are of the same nature, we’re just living like apples do (in a way).
*”What are your views on deja vu Michal?
I don’t know, it’s fascinating. Do you ever wonder why often you remember that you remember something but you don’t actually remember the thing?? What the fuck is that? If you remember that you remember something why not just remember the damn thing! The mind is certainly not a computer.”*
A hack in the system!
It’s simply because our mind processes a LOT of data subconsciously and some parts tend to be ‘remembered’ hence déja-vû, don’t forget that our brains only let us actually experience a rather small percentage of what we’ve experienced consciously. Déja-vû can be quite complicated as it’s very possible that our brains are comparing data from a long time ago that’s somewhere buried deep in our memories.
A similarly interesting habit of our minds is dreaming. Did you ever notice that having dreams always seem to be important somehow? Hence why people believe in the ridiculous idea of dreams possibly predicting the future and that kind of crap… The real reason though is that our brain decided that those thoughts are somehow important and since our mind doesn’t work like a computer and can simply search a database, this is the way we re-experience data again. Much like how in a déja-vû the data gets compared too. Having the actual déja-vû experience of “hey what the … didn’t I experience this before” is because you actually think about one thought 3 times… There are dozens of extremely interesting books on this, definitely very fascinating.
We didn’t start the fire.
“The lions will eventually die too. Survival is not the answer. Where is the end of this evolutionary struggle? What is the final prize?”
Life has two goals.
The first goal is survival. Both immediate and long-term.
The second is reproduction.
The eaten zebra probably won’t pass on it’s genes. The satiated lion will be stronger than his adversaries and pass his genes on. The continuation of his existence will be in his offspring.
It’s really as simple as that. Whatever aids those two goals is considered a benefit and is put somewhere on the list of priorities. Whatever hinders this is put on the avoid list. Playfulness apparently aids survival or reproduction.
Life has no other goal that ultimately reproduction. Life is the opposite of enthropy – massing energy and creating patterns that can multiply. There’s no goal in life – no sense. We’re machines designed to survive and reproduce, or more like it – reproduce while surviving.
On the other hand you do have a point. People, the strange animals we are, have to believe in something. Though I find it strange you endorse – or then wait, wrong word – consider hate a concept one may follow. I’d even go as far to naming particular people you thought about when writing that sentence.
bigboss: There’s only one way for you to understand Michal’s philosophy. And it’s kind of like religion. The facts play no role. It could be a bright orange rubber dildo you’re praying to – and frankly logic is irrelevant to the point of it – the state of mind. You’d have to bring your mind down to a level where you’re not able or willing to validate the claims with logic and reasoning – I suggest prefferably marijuana or in the lack of the former alcohol. I found it impossible to follow Michal’s ramblings without either or reply on a similar level – this by the way explains the grammatical errors.
I didnt read it but I WANT BERZERKER!
Read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. It explains life through the nature of replicating genes. It’s easy reading as well.
I didnt read it but I WANT BERZERKER!
Sure, everybody wants it.
PHeMoX: From my experience dreams are predictions, but rather in the sense of a simulation. The brain makes simulations of possible outcomes coming from your current belief system and experiences. So what you dream about, with most certainty will happen in one way or another in your waking life. Of course people and situations will be different but you’ll act in the same way. Fun stuff.
archont: There’s no goal in life – no sense. We’re machines designed to survive and reproduce, or more like it – reproduce while surviving.
So we agree. Sure we are reproducing and surviving but ultimately what is the purpose of that? I say no purpose, just for play. Surviving and reproducing are like rules in a game, to make it more fun. Like gravity and weapon restrictions in Soldat.
And yeah a different state of mind might help. I never write this in a ‘normal’ state. It doesn’t have to be marijuana, simple day dreaming is sufficient.
Anonymous: yeah read it, good book for expanding your intelligence.
“There’s only one way for you to understand Michal’s philosophy. The facts play no role”
I get Michal’s philosophy. It’s just that I refuse to waver my ability for critical thinking, a point I take pride in, to follow whatever arbitrary idea is passed around the table. Not my style.
“deja vu experiences are caused when an area of the brain that deals with familiarity gets disrupted”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061128140552.htm
“Sure we are reproducing and surviving but ultimately what is the purpose of that? I say no purpose, just for play.”
I told you before, and I’ll say it again. Purposes are human constructs. Life is the self organization of matter with reproductive capabilities . Your life has no “purpose” unless you as a human decide to make something of the self organizing around you.
From my experience dreams are predictions, but rather in the sense of a simulation. The brain makes simulations of possible outcomes coming from your current belief system and experiences. So what you dream about, with most certainty will happen in one way or another in your waking life.
Yes! That’s exactly what I thought it was too! It happens intermitently but it still happens. It’s fucking strange and quite frightnening sometimes.
A hack in the system!
I don’t know, it’s fascinating. Do you ever wonder why often you remember that you remember something but you don’t actually remember the thing?? What the fuck is that? If you remember that you remember something why not just remember the damn thing! The mind is certainly not a computer.
Whenever I get deja vu I stop for a second and try to remember what it is I was thinking of, but I can’t. It’s almost as if it doesn’t want me to know what it is. It flashes in my mind that I was experiencing whatever it was I was experiencing at another time, then it just disappears.
Oh and all those people who like to arse-rape Michal on his beliefs – Fuck off. It takes a lot of balls to open up and share your thoughts and feelings especially on the internet. You’re a sitting target for some people and an inspiration to others.
“It takes a lot of balls to open up and share your thoughts and feelings especially on the internet.”
No it doesn’t. Everyone and their puppy have a blog. It’s not as if someone’s keeping score over what arbitrary theories you come up with. The premise of coherent discussion is to reach the truth, not to propagate arbitrary ideas.
“The premise of coherent discussion is to reach the truth, not to propagate arbitrary ideas.”
There are two schools. Suppose you have a man who believes in something. Something he won’t find out by himself and something that makes him happy.
Do you agree to disagree and leave him be in his little own world?
Or do you tell him the truth?
What do you value more? Truth or happiness?
Pop-cultural mass-media reached the Internet some years ago and everyone is having a blog without a real purpose but to show that they want to belong to the trendy and cool people.
But then some people actually use blogs to publish their very own ideas and opinions. First one takes no balls, that’s right, since jumping onto the bandwaggon is the exact opposite of *using* a blog to spread your ideas.
At last, I think these comments here and there are the perfect example showing that you have to have balls to say what you really think since once you actually write/publish something controversal, everyone will try to bash you to death.
Speaking of controversal… Michal, what happened to Sigvatr? Is he still alive? And his website/blog? Will it come up again? Or is he having legal difficulties?
Yeah I miss Siggy.
“What do you value more? Truth or happiness?”
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Inform the man of his error and guide him to the truth. He can find happiness either way, it doesn’t stem from a single belief system.
bigbossSNK
As for pain, I totally disagree with Michal.
But, coming back to fragment about universe. I don’t think he really meant a giant brain in the center of the universe playing some kind of star-Boules (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boules). People use personifications. Get over it.
“People use personifications. Get over it.”
When people’s personifications amount to half-baked theories, it’s up to any logical man to stop the propagation of half truths. Get over it.
Well, actually it isnt, SNK. Religion may be all half-truths or totally false too, but by law you are not allowed to say anything against somebody’s religion, including denying its possible existance, it’s as if you were insulting the person because of the skin color. (At least this is true in the country where it is the main religion, christians in America, muslims in the Middle East and so on)
regaurding these humanities essays/blogs…. the most important question to ask was of myself.
DOES IT WORK?
oops i was so caught up with positive emotion i hit the enter button to early……..
anyway…
the answer is yes.
“but by law you are not allowed to say anything against somebody’s religion, including denying its possible existence”
The law ain’t always right, kid .
Humor aside, personal attacks on the basis of religion are a violation of privacy and personality. But you aren’t attacking someone if he is open minded to other answers of his own volition.
In which case you can teach him the errors of religion.
Damn blog ate my “Clint Eastwood voice” HTML tag. No disrespect meant, Cosmin.
Everyone and their puppy have a blog. It’s not as if someone’s keeping score over what arbitrary theories you come up with. The premise of coherent discussion is to reach the truth, not to propagate arbitrary ideas.
What’s wrong with creating a blog to show people what you think of certain things?
What do you value more? Truth or happiness?
Truth is whatever we agree for it to be, it’s not real, not written anywhere on a cosmic tablet to be found out. I have complete disgust for truth. Wars have been made over truth and people were killed for that idea.
rgk Says: DOES IT WORK?
Trust me on this, I never write anything that I haven’t tested at least for a couple months. If these were just “ideas” I wouldn’t be so confident about them completely disregarding any logical attack. If it works for me, the logic is wrong or my ability to communicate it, not the idea. It’s critical to see if it works, not just think about it.
Wars have been made over truth and people were killed for that idea.
Wars were made over religion which was made into a belief system. I rather like to think religion as an idea or guideline to live everyday then something I would fight over.
There is logic in religion if you don’t take it as the same. its rather hard to move from a rock and a hard spot, where i am at the moment.
When your logic falters, faith has its place, especially when emotion can overpower logic anytime, where I find it true in my job.
Logic is driven by emotion. For example bigbossSNK has an emotional need to disprove me logically. Isn’t that funny?
bigbossSNK is nothing but a noisy troll. He’s a nice example of “poisonous people” on the Internet.
And no, I don’t agree with pretty much any of the crap Michal says, but trolls like bigbossSNK just piss me off.
bigbossSNK is nothing but a noisy troll. He’s a nice example of “poisonous people” on the Internet.
And no, I don’t agree with pretty much any of the crap Michal says, but trolls like bigbossSNK just piss me off.
He’s not a troll, he makes a good argument although he goes to far sometimes.
Unlike you, who instead of contributing are just labelling someone a ‘troll’ whatever the fuck that is. I assume it’s something bad anyway.
“LMGDAO. You don’t even know my name. By definition, you don’t know who I am or what I’ve accomplished in my life, much less what I’m working on.”
Which is exactly why you keep it a secret or what? Is your name that important by the way? Really… you shouldn’t assume stupid things and be such a troll on here. I actually do appreciate your view on things here, but a little bit less arrogance on your behalf would be nice. You are not God, you know… not that I believe in the existence of such a fictional and irrational thing, but I’m sure you catch my drift.
“although he goes to far sometimes.”
Yeah and isn’t that exactly what this ‘troll’ labeling is about?
Yeah and isn’t that exactly what this ‘troll’ labeling is about?
I didn’t know what a troll was, sorry.
So if I said something a bit stupid, then instantly I am labelled a troll? That sounds kinda shit.
LoL, wtf is with the troll? Drop it.
Why the hell doesnt anybody answer to the “Sigvatr” questions???
Stop getting boozed and posting crap MM. We wanna know about Link-Dead and Berserker. BTW.. I know you and Sigvatr are willing to do a single-player RPG game.. damn, why don’t you guys FINISH what you’ve started before starting another project?
Yeah I saw siggy post a music request topic in the mod archive a couple of months ago, saying it was for an RPG.
Walrus: “We wanna know about Link-Dead and Berserker.”
WORD!
“Isn’t going too far exactly what this ‘troll’ labeling is about?”
A troll intends to cause argument and disruption. My intention on this blog is to crystallize the truth in it’s clearest form.
Whether people respond to my posts emotionally or not is of no importance to me.
“Is your name that important by the way?”
The game becomes more interesting when you’ve got something to lose. It’s a gambling chip.
“a little bit less arrogance on your behalf would be nice”
Where’s the fun in that?
Remember bigbossSNK that it used to be scientific fact that the world was flat, it was considered the absolute truth. Then it was proven wrong. Your perception of the truth is the most logical reality with the information available to you.
Michael’s current definition of reality is not necessarily right, and neither is yours. You don’t know everything, nor does Michael. But you shouldn’t discount other peoples opinions based on your limited experience of the universe and blindly believe that you are right.
“My intention on this blog is to crystallize the truth in it’s clearest form.”
Bullshit.
Quote from SNK:
“You are a person sitting in a cinema watching the movie.”
Your life isn’t a movie. You can change it. If you ever went out, met some girls and got laid, you’d know that.
Crystalizing the truth eh?
Another Quote:
Personally, I read this for the thrill of the kill. Honing in on your prey, seeing it’s weakness, calculating the best means of attack.
I see.
“That is not a proof but a claim.”
It’s a valid proof based on logical reasoning. But then again, logical thinking never was your strong suit, was it, Michal?
I won’t repeat what Tblazer13 already said.
On second thoughts you are sort of trolling. I award you with 1 out of 5 trolling points.
Don’t hate the playa, hate the game.
By reading through the comments here, I get the impression that some people (no names) don’t get the essence of what MM is trying to tell here at all…
It’s funny to see how these people try to enforce truth with their words. See, this is the difference between you and MM. He just writes this stuff because he feels like it without claiming that it is “the truth”. This is only food for thought which might help you to find your own truth, because every truth is subjective. This is also what MM is talking about, it always depends on the experiencer.
Now go attack me too, but hey, I won’t care and discuss with you.
Michal, I am happy you quoted Bill Hicks here. His words have a very deep and powerful meaning.
Some parts of your article also remind me of the Zeitgeist movie ending, did you watch it?
“it used to be scientific fact that the world was flat, it was considered the absolute truth”
That’s just a myth. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
So, that’s a crash and burn there, bubba.
“you shouldn’t discount other people’s opinions based on your limited experience of the universe and blindly believe that you are right.”
Blind belief and critical thinking are mutually exclusive. I employ critical thinking in my arguments.
“If you ever went out, met some girls and got laid, you’d know that.
Crystallizing the truth eh?”
Yep, it pretty much crystallizes the fact that if you go out, meet some girls and get laid, you’ll stop thinking the world is a movie. (the getting laid part is unnecessary, but fun)
“But then again, logical thinking never was your strong suit, was it, Michal?”
“Crystallizing the truth eh?”
Reinstating the initial context :”That is not a proof but a claim. So you lose, now piss off.”
“I award you with 1 out of 5 trolling points.”
Oh, man, I was waiting for a prize, like marshmallows or something.
Whachagonnado. Maybe next time.
“Every truth is subjective”
No. There are objective truths. We have a name for it. It’s “physical reality”. Read up on it, you already live in it.
“This is also what MM is talking about, it always depends on the experiencer.”
Well, he’s wrong. And not in the way that depends on the experiencer.
In some way you are very amusing bigbossSNK. I hope we meet someday, cause I have an impression I absolutely know what kind of person you are and I’d like to confront that.
$able: yeah watched Zeitgeist, you sent me the link :D.
If that stuff in the movie is true (and seems very plausible) then people are fucked. So I got to cheer myself up. Knowing that this is just a ride makes me feel better :).
“PHeMoX: From my experience dreams are predictions, but rather in the sense of a simulation. The brain makes simulations of possible outcomes coming from your current belief system and experiences. So what you dream about, with most certainty will happen in one way or another in your waking life. Of course people and situations will be different but you’ll act in the same way. Fun stuff.”
True, in a more abstract way it may very well predict future happenings, but that’s just a matter of probability vs. possibility.
“it used to be scientific fact that the world was flat, it was considered the absolute truth”
That’s just a myth. http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth
So, that’s a crash and burn there, bubba.
———
So it looks like I was wrong about that, I’m not afraid to be wrong. But you prove what I am saying by proving me wrong. You do not KNOW what reality is, you only think you do, just like me. Two very good illustrations of this are the movies The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor.
“you shouldn’t discount other people’s opinions based on your limited experience of the universe and blindly believe that you are right.”
Blind belief and critical thinking are mutually exclusive. I employ critical thinking in my arguments.
——–
You believe that your critical thinking is infallible? A man born blind has no idea what it is like to see, so how are you to know that you are not blind?
In some way you are very amusing bigbossSNK. I hope we meet someday, cause I have an impression I absolutely know what kind of person you are and I’d like to confront that.
I think we’d all like to read what your impression is, Michal!
Oh yeah SNK you forgot to quote the second quote from my post :).
Michal, bigbossSNK: http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/6118/0119929xl6.jpg
“You do not KNOW what reality is, you only think you do, just like me.”
Unlike you, I base my knowledge of reality on facts. Just because you blindly believe other people’s arbitrary social programming, doesn’t mean I do.
“Two very good illustrations of this are the movies The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor.”
I’ve already proven why we don’t live in a Matrix world in another topic of this blog.
“A man born blind has no idea what it is like to see, so how are you to know that you are not blind?”
Medically speaking, because my visual input and visual recognition biological mechanisms are functioning.
Aside from that, I am “blind” to ultraviolet light. But I know ultraviolet light exists due to it’s physical effect on other physical objects. Sensory perceptions isn’t the only way of acquiring information.
“Oh yeah SNK you forgot to quote the second quote from my post :).”
Nah, I didn’t forget, I just considered it obvious. My intention in this blog is to crystallize the truth, and my reason for reading it is to hone my logical skills by thinking where each comment is in contrast to reality.
“arguing on the internet”
I’m not arguing. I’m having a discussion. If you don’t know the definitions, google them.
Drama is serious business…
bigbossSNK: you’re crystalizing the truth… but to whom? Who are you trying to prove this to?
I’m not interested in the truth so you can’t even discuss this with me cause I don’t care. Some people here agree with me on this so they are not close-minded in this case like you. And the people that believe in some truth already agree with you, so you don’t need to crystalize anything for them.
Is there like an objective judge somewhere that you need to show this to?
Drama is serious business
Internet is serious business.
“The people that believe in some truth already agree with you”
Not everyone agrees with me initially. People make mistakes in their reasoning. If they didn’t we wouldn’t be having this discussion. You would have agreed with me by now.
“Is there like an objective judge somewhere that you need to show this to?”
Nope. I already explained the reason for my participation in this blog.
This blog really has a whole scale of pathetic people.
On one level, there’s the bored programmer dude who has a pretty laid back mindset and uses different approaches to try and share his views.
On another level, there’s a bunch of people who have an undying urge to prove their superiority ( over the internet ) by proving someone else wrong ( on the internet ) and thus spend many precious minutes of their short life ( on the internet ) typing long paragraphs to do so.
And on a third level, there’s someone bored enough on a friday night to read this blog and it’s comments instead of going out and having fun.
Also, I’m more interested in the humanity posts of this blog than the developer part. Stone me.
“This blog really has a whole scale of pathetic people.”
Your pity is unfounded. Michal voices his opinion, as is his right. People who disagree with him aren’t trying to “prove their superiority”. They ‘re trying to search for the truth. The difference being, they accept their mistakes when they make them.
As for you being pathetic, there isn’t enough information to go on. Oh, and hardly anyone cares, because you have no value for the group.
What arbitrary social programming to you think I believe?
|
|
Have you ever heard of a metaphor?
|
|
I didn’t say we live in a Matrix world. Although I would like to see your “proof” that we don’t live in one.
|
|
Agreed, bigbossSNK is going to go on thinking what he’s thinking, you are going to go on thinking what you’re thinking, and I am going to go on thinking what I’m thinking, regardless of what anybody on this blog says. So this whole argument/debate/discussion is pretty pointless.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7193/dutycallsii8.png
other comment got butchered by system, fixxed
What arbitrary social programming to you think I believe?
Have you ever heard of a metaphor?
I didn’t say we live in a Matrix world. Although I would like to see your “proof” that we don’t live in one.
Agreed, bigbossSNK is going to go on thinking what he’s thinking, you are going to go on thinking what you’re thinking, and I am going to go on thinking what I’m thinking, regardless of what anybody on this blog says. So this whole argument/debate/discussion is pretty pointless.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7193/dutycallsii8.png
ok, really fixed this time
—
“You do not KNOW what reality is, you only think you do, just like me.”
Unlike you, I base my knowledge of reality on facts. Just because you blindly believe other people’s arbitrary social programming, doesn’t mean I do.
What arbitrary social programming to you think I believe?
—
“A man born blind has no idea what it is like to see, so how are you to know that you are not blind?”
Medically speaking, because my visual input and visual recognition biological mechanisms are functioning.
Aside from that, I am “blind” to ultraviolet light. But I know ultraviolet light exists due to it’s physical effect on other physical objects. Sensory perceptions isn’t the only way of acquiring information.
Have you ever heard of a metaphor?
—
“Two very good illustrations of this are the movies The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor.”
I’ve already proven why we don’t live in a Matrix world in another topic of this blog.
I didn’t say we live in a Matrix world. Although I would like to see your “proof” that we don’t live in one.
—
bigbossSNK: you’re crystalizing the truth… but to whom? Who are you trying to prove this to? I’m not interested in the truth so you can’t even discuss this with me cause I don’t care. Some people here agree with me on this so they are not close-minded in this case like you. And the people that believe in some truth already agree with you, so you don’t need to crystalize anything for them.
Is there like an objective judge somewhere that you need to show this to?
Agreed, bigbossSNK is going to go on thinking what he’s thinking, you are going to go on thinking what you’re thinking, and I am going to go on thinking what I’m thinking, regardless of what anybody on this blog says. So this whole argument/debate/discussion is pretty pointless.
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7193/dutycallsii8.png
“What arbitrary social programming do you think I believe?”
The one you mentioned: That people believed the world is flat.
“Have you ever heard of a metaphor?”
I have. I then proceeded to separate it into its constituents, reject it on its first level and use a metaphor of my own to reject the second level.
“I would like to see your “proof” that we don’t live in one.”
http://mm.soldat.pl/?p=173
“there is no valid outcome from online discussions”
When people act like blockheads. If they are willing to accept their mistakes, they can learn something. Much like you possibly did with the “flat earth” myth.
“http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/7193/dutycallsii8.png”
It is a logical mistake to think that every fight is worth fighting. This is not a logical mistake I am willing to commit.
What would you do bigbossSNK if we found out that there is a flaw in science as we know it today, and most of what we believe about reality was proven wrong?
Please don’t answer this with “but I’m not wrong, science proves it” and remember that this is just hypothetical.
—
I do not think that there is no valid outcome from online discussions. But I do think that trying to convert people who don’t want to be converted is just causing trouble. I think that stating you views is fine, but you should respect other peoples views and not cause trouble for them because they believe something else.
Above anonymous is me, forgot to put name.
Oh the sweet drama. So enjoyable. And extra points for the “internet is serious business” remark. I know where that came from.
I’d write a lengthy post but I can’t hit the keys. Instead..
Bigboss: some arguments can’t be won by logic or facts. In those cases arranging a little sparring to solve the dispute in a more direct way reveals the winner quickly and reliably. I’m sure Michał would be willing for this king or arrangement?
i love to watch people with a other opinion of life . like for instance Scientology and the flat earth community.
“In those cases arranging a little sparring to solve the dispute in a more direct way reveals the winner quickly and reliably”
If we’re going to fight, it’s going to be for the thrill of the fight alone. Fights or wars don’t decide who is correct with any degree of reliability, only who has and applies the tools to win in a physical fight.
“I love to watch people with another opinion of life. Like for instance Scientology and the flat earth community.”
Yeah, they crack me up, too.
“What would you do, bigbossSNK, if we found out that there is a flaw in science as we know it today, and most of what we believe about reality was proven wrong?”
Your hypothesis is an impossible premise.
Nonetheless, I will answer to clarify my stance: I would be among the people who work to realize where we were wrong, and how to fix it.
*“Every truth is subjective”
No. There are objective truths. We have a name for it. It’s “physical reality”. Read up on it, you already live in it.*
Here you are clearly giving too much credit to what we understand (I’m talking about the scientific community and all their concensi here).
*If we’re going to fight, it’s going to be for the thrill of the fight alone. Fights or wars don’t decide who is correct with any degree of reliability, only who has and applies the tools to win in a physical fight.*
Didn’t you know? Losers always finish last…. just so you know.
What would you do, bigbossSNK, if we found out that there is a flaw in science as we know it today, and most of what we believe about reality was proven wrong?
If I may:
It wouldn’t matter. The computer you’re reading this message on would not be possible without science, logic and facts. It doesn’t matter if the theories exploited to build this device are real or not, it works. And even if we’d suddenly realize electricity doesn’t exist, works the other way around or isn’t what we believed it to be – it doesn’t matter. Your TV remote won’t stop working, planes won’t fall out of the sky and streetlights won’t start showering pedestrians with sparks.
Lol you’re still wasting your time discussing this crap?
Posting something about Link-Dead or Berserker, it’s way more usefull.
“Losers always finish last…. just so you know.”
Thank you for stating the obvious. Yet the point I was making, and that you failed to grasp, is that winners of physical bouts aren’t necessarily correct on their opinions.
I
Whoever has looked into a modern treatise on logic of the common sort, will doubtless remember the two distinctions between clear and obscure conceptions, and between distinct and confused conceptions. They have lain in the books now for nigh two centuries, unimproved and unmodified, and are generally reckoned by logicians as among the gems of their doctrine.
A clear idea is defined as one which is so apprehended that it will be recognized wherever it is met with, and so that no other will be mistaken for it. If it fails of this clearness, it is said to be obscure.
This is rather a neat bit of philosophical terminology; yet, since it is clearness that they were defining, I wish the logicians had made their definition a little more plain. Never to fail to recognize an idea, and under no circumstances to mistake another for it, let it come in how recondite a form it may, would indeed imply such prodigious force and clearness of intellect as is seldom met with in this world. On the other hand, merely to have such an acquaintance with the idea as to have become familiar with it, and to have lost all hesitancy in recognizing it in ordinary cases, hardly seems to deserve the name of clearness of apprehension, since after all it only amounts to a subjective feeling of mastery which may be entirely mistaken. I take it, however, that when the logicians speak of “clearness,” they mean nothing more than such a familiarity with an idea, since they regard the quality as but a small merit, which needs to be supplemented by another, which they call distinctness.
A distinct idea is defined as one which contains nothing which is not clear. This is technical language; by the contents of an idea logicians understand whatever is contained in its definition. So that an idea is distinctly apprehended, according to them, when we can give a precise definition of it, in abstract terms. Here the professional logicians leave the subject; and I would not have troubled the reader with what they have to say, if it were not such a striking example of how they have been slumbering through ages of intellectual activity, listlessly disregarding the enginery of modern thought, and never dreaming of applying its lessons to the improvement of logic. It is easy to show that the doctrine that familiar use and abstract distinctness make the perfection of apprehension has its only true place in philosophies which have long been extinct; and it is now time to formulate the method of attaining to a more perfect clearness of thought, such as we see and admire in the thinkers of our own time.
When Descartes set about the reconstruction of philosophy, his first step was to (theoretically) permit scepticism and to discard the practice of the schoolmen of looking to authority as the ultimate source of truth. That done, he sought a more natural fountain of true principles, and thought he found it in the human mind; thus passing, in the directest way, from the method of authority to that of apriority, as described in my first paper. Self-consciousness was to furnish us with our fundamental truths, and to decide what was agreeable to reason. But since, evidently, not all ideas are true, he was led to note, as the first condition of infallibility, that they must be clear. The distinction between an idea seeming clear and really being so, never occurred to him. Trusting to introspection, as he did, even for a knowledge of external things, why should he question its testimony in respect to the contents of our own minds? But then, I suppose, seeing men, who seemed to be quite clear and positive, holding opposite opinions upon fundamental principles, he was further led to say that clearness of ideas is not sufficient, but that they need also to be distinct, i.e., to have nothing unclear about them. What he probably meant by this (for he did not explain himself with precision) was, that they must sustain the test of dialectical examination; that they must not only seem clear at the outset, but that discussion must never be able to bring to light points of obscurity connected with them.
Such was the distinction of Descartes, and one sees that it was precisely on the level of his philosophy. It was somewhat developed by Leibnitz. This great and singular genius was as remarkable for what he failed to see as for what he saw. That a piece of mechanism could not do work perpetually without being fed with power in some form, was a thing perfectly apparent to him; yet he did not understand that the machinery of the mind can only transform knowledge, but never originate it, unless it be fed with facts of observation. He thus missed the most essential point of the Cartesian philosophy, which is, that to accept propositions which seem perfectly evident to us is a thing which, whether it be logical or illogical, we cannot help doing. Instead of regarding the matter in this way, he sought to reduce the first principles of science to two classes, those which cannot be denied without self-contradiction, and those which result from the principle of sufficient reason (of which more anon), and was apparently unaware of the great difference between his position and that of Descartes. So he reverted to the old trivialities of logic; and, above all, abstract definitions played a great part in his philosophy. It was quite natural, therefore, that on observing that the method of Descartes labored under the difficulty that we may seem to ourselves to have clear apprehensions of ideas which in truth are very hazy, no better remedy occurred to him than to require an abstract definition of every important term. Accordingly, in adopting the distinction of clear and distinct notions, he described the latter quality as the clear apprehension of everything contained in the definition; and the books have ever since copied his words. There is no danger that his chimerical scheme will ever again be over-valued. Nothing new can ever be learned by analyzing definitions. Nevertheless, our existing beliefs can be set in order by this process, and order is an essential element of intellectual economy, as of every other. It may be acknowledged, therefore, that the books are right in making familiarity with a notion the first step toward clearness of apprehension, and the defining of it the second. But in omitting all mention of any higher perspicuity of thought, they simply mirror a philosophy which was exploded a hundred years ago. That much-admired “ornament of logic” — the doctrine of clearness and distinctness — may be pretty enough, but it is high time to relegate to our cabinet of curiosities the antique bijou, and to wear about us something better adapted to modern uses.
The very first lesson that we have a right to demand that logic shall teach us is, how to make our ideas clear; and a most important one it is, depreciated only by minds who stand in need of it. To know what we think, to be masters of our own meaning, will make a solid foundation for great and weighty thought. It is most easily learned by those whose ideas are meagre and restricted; and far happier they than such as wallow helplessly in a rich mud of conceptions. A nation, it is true, may, in the course of generations, overcome the disadvantage of an excessive wealth of language and its natural concomitant, a vast, unfathomable deep of ideas. We may see it in history, slowly perfecting its literary forms, sloughing at length its metaphysics, and, by virtue of the untirable patience which is often a compensation, attaining great excellence in every branch of mental acquirement. The page of history is not yet unrolled that is to tell us whether such a people will or will not in the long run prevail over one whose ideas (like the words of their language) are few, but which possesses a wonderful mastery over those which it has. For an individual, however, there can be no question that a few clear ideas are worth more than many confused ones. A young man would hardly be persuaded to sacrifice the greater part of his thoughts to save the rest; and the muddled head is the least apt to see the necessity of such a sacrifice. Him we can usually only commiserate, as a person with a congenital defect. Time will help him, but intellectual maturity with regard to clearness is apt to come rather late. This seems an unfortunate arrangement of Nature, inasmuch as clearness is of less use to a man settled in life, whose errors have in great measure had their effect, than it would be to one whose path lay before him. It is terrible to see how a single unclear idea, a single formula without meaning, lurking in a young man’s head, will sometimes act like an obstruction of inert matter in an artery, hindering the nutrition of the brain, and condemning its victim to pine away in the fullness of his intellectual vigor and in the midst of intellectual plenty. Many a man has cherished for years as his hobby some vague shadow of an idea, too meaningless to be positively false; he has, nevertheless, passionately loved it, has made it his companion by day and by night, and has given to it his strength and his life, leaving all other occupations for its sake, and in short has lived with it and for it, until it has become, as it were, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone; and then he has waked up some bright morning to find it gone, clean vanished away like the beautiful Melusina of the fable, and the essence of his life gone with it. I have myself known such a man; and who can tell how many histories of circle-squarers, metaphysicians, astrologers, and what not, may not be told in the old German story?
II
The principles set forth in the first part of this essay lead, at once, to a method of reaching a clearness of thought of higher grade than the “distinctness” of the logicians. It was there noticed that the action of thought is excited by the irritation of doubt, and ceases when belief is attained; so that the production of belief is the sole function of thought. All these words, however, are too strong for my purpose. It is as if I had described the phenomena as they appear under a mental microscope. Doubt and Belief, as the words are commonly employed, relate to religious or other grave discussions. But here I use them to designate the starting of any question, no matter how small or how great, and the resolution of it. If, for instance, in a horse-car, I pull out my purse and find a five-cent nickel and five coppers, I decide, while my hand is going to the purse, in which way I will pay my fare. To call such a question Doubt, and my decision Belief, is certainly to use words very disproportionate to the occasion. To speak of such a doubt as causing an irritation which needs to be appeased, suggests a temper which is uncomfortable to the verge of insanity. Yet, looking at the matter minutely, it must be admitted that, if there is the least hesitation as to whether I shall pay the five coppers or the nickel (as there will be sure to be, unless I act from some previously contracted habit in the matter), though irritation is too strong a word, yet I am excited to such small mental activity as may be necessary to deciding how I shall act. Most frequently doubts arise from some indecision, however momentary, in our action. Sometimes it is not so. I have, for example, to wait in a railway-station, and to pass the time I read the advertisements on the walls. I compare the advantages of different trains and different routes which I never expect to take, merely fancying myself to be in a state of hesitancy, because I am bored with having nothing to trouble me. Feigned hesitancy, whether feigned for mere amusement or with a lofty purpose, plays a great part in the production of scientific inquiry. However the doubt may originate, it stimulates the mind to an activity which may be slight or energetic, calm or turbulent. Images pass rapidly through consciousness, one incessantly melting into another, until at last, when all is over — it may be in a fraction of a second, in an hour, or after long years — we find ourselves decided as to how we should act under such circumstances as those which occasioned our hesitation. In other words, we have attained belief.
In this process we observe two sorts of elements of consciousness, the distinction between which may best be made clear by means of an illustration. In a piece of music there are the separate notes, and there is the air. A single tone may be prolonged for an hour or a day, and it exists as perfectly in each second of that time as in the whole taken together; so that, as long as it is sounding, it might be present to a sense from which everything in the past was as completely absent as the future itself. But it is different with the air, the performance of which occupies a certain time, during the portions of which only portions of it are played. It consists in an orderliness in the succession of sounds which strike the ear at different times; and to perceive it there must be some continuity of consciousness which makes the events of a lapse of time present to us. We certainly only perceive the air by hearing the separate notes; yet we cannot be said to directly hear it, for we hear only what is present at the instant, and an orderliness of succession cannot exist in an instant. These two sorts of objects, what we are immediately conscious of and what we are mediately conscious of, are found in all consciousness. Some elements (the sensations) are completely present at every instant so long as they last, while others (like thought) are actions having beginning, middle, and end, and consist in a congruence in the succession of sensations which flow through the mind. They cannot be immediately present to us, but must cover some portion of the past or future. Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our sensations.
We may add that just as a piece of music may be written in parts, each part having its own air, so various systems of relationship of succession subsist together between the same sensations. These different systems are distinguished by having different motives, ideas, or functions. Thought is only one such system, for its sole motive, idea, and function is to produce belief, and whatever does not concern that purpose belongs to some other system of relations. The action of thinking may incidentally have other results; it may serve to amuse us, for example, and among dilettanti it is not rare to find those who have so perverted thought to the purposes of pleasure that it seems to vex them to think that the questions upon which they delight to exercise it may ever get finally settled; and a positive discovery which takes a favorite subject out of the arena of literary debate is met with ill-concealed dislike. This disposition is the very debauchery of thought. But the soul and meaning of thought, abstracted from the other elements which accompany it, though it may be voluntarily thwarted, can never be made to direct itself toward anything but the production of belief. Thought in action has for its only possible motive the attainment of thought at rest; and whatever does not refer to belief is no part of the thought itself.
And what, then, is belief? It is the demi-cadence which closes a musical phrase in the symphony of our intellectual life. We have seen that it has just three properties: First, it is something that we are aware of; second, it appeases the irritation of doubt; and, third, it involves the establishment in our nature of a rule of action, or, say for short, a habit. As it appeases the irritation of doubt, which is the motive for thinking, thought relaxes, and comes to rest for a moment when belief is reached. But, since belief is a rule for action, the application of which involves further doubt and further thought, at the same time that it is a stopping-place, it is also a new starting-place for thought. That is why I have permitted myself to call it thought at rest, although thought is essentially an action. The final upshot of thinking is the exercise of volition, and of this thought no longer forms a part; but belief is only a stadium of mental action, an effect upon our nature due to thought, which will influence future thinking.
The essence of belief is the establishment of a habit; and different beliefs are distinguished by the different modes of action to which they give rise. If beliefs do not differ in this respect, if they appease the same doubt by producing the same rule of action, then no mere differences in the manner of consciousness of them can make them different beliefs, any more than playing a tune in different keys is playing different tunes. Imaginary distinctions are often drawn between beliefs which differ only in their mode of expression; — the wrangling which ensues is real enough, however. Such false distinctions do as much harm as the confusion of beliefs really different, and are among the pitfalls of which we ought constantly to beware, especially when we are upon metaphysical ground. One singular deception of this sort, which often occurs, is to mistake the sensation produced by our own unclearness of thought for a character of the object we are thinking. Instead of perceiving that the obscurity is purely subjective, we fancy that we contemplate a quality of the object which is essentially mysterious; and if our conception be afterward presented to us in a clear form we do not recognize it as the same, owing to the absence of the feeling of unintelligibility. So long as this deception lasts, it obviously puts an impassable barrier in the way of perspicuous thinking; so that it equally interests the opponents of rational thought to perpetuate it, and its adherents to guard against it.
Another such deception is to mistake a mere difference in the grammatical construction of two words for a distinction between the ideas they express. In this pedantic age, when the general mob of writers attend so much more to words than to things, this error is common enough. When I just said that thought is an action, and that it consists in a relation, although a person performs an action but not a relation, which can only be the result of an action, yet there was no inconsistency in what I said, but only a grammatical vagueness.
From all these sophisms we shall be perfectly safe so long as we reflect that the whole function of thought is to produce habits of action; and that whatever there is connected with a thought, but irrelevant to its purpose, is an accretion to it, but no part of it. If there be a unity among our sensations which has no reference to how we shall act on a given occasion, as when we listen to a piece of music, why we do not call that thinking. To develop its meaning, we have, therefore, simply to determine what habits it produces, for what a thing means is simply what habits it involves. Now, the identity of a habit depends on how it might lead us to act, not merely under such circumstances as are likely to arise, but under such as might possibly occur, no matter how improbable they may be. What the habit is depends on when and how it causes us to act. As for the when, every stimulus to action is derived from perception; as for the how, every purpose of action is to produce some sensible result. Thus, we come down to what is tangible and conceivably practical, as the root of every real distinction of thought, no matter how subtile it may be; and there is no distinction of meaning so fine as to consist in anything but a possible difference of practice.
To see what this principle leads to, consider in the light of it such a doctrine as that of transubstantiation. The Protestant churches generally hold that the elements of the sacrament are flesh and blood only in a tropical sense; they nourish our souls as meat and the juice of it would our bodies. But the Catholics maintain that they are literally just meat and blood; although they possess all the sensible qualities of wafercakes and diluted wine. But we can have no conception of wine except what may enter into a belief, either —
1. That this, that, or the other, is wine; or,
2. That wine possesses certain properties.
Such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe to be wine according to the qualities which we believe wine to possess. The occasion of such action would be some sensible perception, the motive of it to produce some sensible result. Thus our action has exclusive reference to what affects the senses, our habit has the same bearing as our action, our belief the same as our habit, our conception the same as our belief; and we can consequently mean nothing by wine but what has certain effects, direct or indirect, upon our senses; and to talk of something as having all the sensible characters of wine, yet being in reality blood, is senseless jargon. Now, it is not my object to pursue the theological question; and having used it as a logical example I drop it, without caring to anticipate the theologian’s reply. I only desire to point out how impossible it is that we should have an idea in our minds which relates to anything but conceived sensible effects of things. Our idea of anything is our idea of its sensible effects; and if we fancy that we have any other we deceive ourselves, and mistake a mere sensation accompanying the thought for a part of the thought itself. It is absurd to say that thought has any meaning unrelated to its only function. It is foolish for Catholics and Protestants to fancy themselves in disagreement about the elements of the sacrament, if they agree in regard to all their sensible effects, here and hereafter.
It appears, then, that the rule for attaining the third grade of clearness of apprehension is as follows: Consider what effects, that might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then, our conception of these effects is the whole of our conception of the object.
III
Let us illustrate this rule by some examples; and, to begin with the simplest one possible, let us ask what we mean by calling a thing hard. Evidently that it will not be scratched by many other substances. The whole conception of this quality, as of every other, lies in its conceived effects. There is absolutely no difference between a hard thing and a soft thing so long as they are not brought to the test. Suppose, then, that a diamond could be crystallized in the midst of a cushion of soft cotton, and should remain there until it was finally burned up. Would it be false to say that that diamond was soft? This seems a foolish question, and would be so, in fact, except in the realm of logic. There such questions are often of the greatest utility as serving to bring logical principles into sharper relief than real discussions ever could. In studying logic we must not put them aside with hasty answers, but must consider them with attentive care, in order to make out the principles involved. We may, in the present case, modify our question, and ask what prevents us from saying that all hard bodies remain perfectly soft until they are touched, when their hardness increases with the pressure until they are scratched. Reflection will show that the reply is this: there would be no falsity in such modes of speech. They would involve a modification of our present usage of speech with regard to the words hard and soft, but not of their meanings. For they represent no fact to be different from what it is; only they involve arrangements of facts which would be exceedingly maladroit. This leads us to remark that the question of what would occur under circumstances which do not actually arise is not a question of fact, but only of the most perspicuous arrangement of them. For example, the question of free-will and fate in its simplest form, stripped of verbiage, is something like this: I have done something of which I am ashamed; could I, by an effort of the will, have resisted the temptation, and done otherwise? The philosophical reply is, that this is not a question of fact, but only of the arrangement of facts. Arranging them so as to exhibit what is particularly pertinent to my question — namely, that I ought to blame myself for having done wrong — it is perfectly true to say that, if I had willed to do otherwise than I did, I should have done otherwise. On the other hand, arranging the facts so as to exhibit another important consideration, it is equally true that, when a temptation has once been allowed to work, it will, if it has a certain force, produce its effect, let me struggle how I may. There is no objection to a contradiction in what would result from a false supposition. The reductio ad absurdum consists in showing that contradictory results would follow from a hypothesis which is consequently judged to be false. Many questions are involved in the free-will discussion, and I am far from desiring to say that both sides are equally right. On the contrary, I am of opinion that one side denies important facts, and that the other does not. But what I do say is, that the above single question was the origin of the whole doubt; that, had it not been for this question, the controversy would never have arisen; and that this question is perfectly solved in the manner which I have indicated.
Let us next seek a clear idea of Weight. This is another very easy case. To say that a body is heavy means simply that, in the absence of opposing force, it will fall. This (neglecting certain specifications of how it will fall, etc., which exist in the mind of the physicist who uses the word) is evidently the whole conception of weight. It is a fair question whether some particular facts may not account for gravity; but what we mean by the force itself is completely involved in its effects.
This leads us to undertake an account of the idea of Force in general. This is the great conception which, developed in the early part of the seventeenth century from the rude idea of a cause, and constantly improved upon since, has shown us how to explain all the changes of motion which bodies experience, and how to think about all physical phenomena; which has given birth to modern science, and changed the face of the globe; and which, aside from its more special uses, has played a principal part in directing the course of modern thought, and in furthering modern social development. It is, therefore, worth some pains to comprehend it. According to our rule, we must begin by asking what is the immediate use of thinking about force; and the answer is, that we thus account for changes of motion. If bodies were left to themselves, without the intervention of forces, every motion would continue unchanged both in velocity and in direction. Furthermore, change of motion never takes place abruptly; if its direction is changed, it is always through a curve without angles; if its velocity alters, it is by degrees. The gradual changes which are constantly taking place are conceived by geometers to be compounded together according to the rules of the parallelogram of forces. If the reader does not already know what this is, he will find it, I hope, to his advantage to endeavor to follow the following explanation; but if mathematics are insupportable to him, pray let him skip three paragraphs rather than that we should part company here.
A path is a line whose beginning and end are distinguished. Two paths are considered to be equivalent, which, beginning at the same point, lead to the same point. Thus the two paths, A B C D E and A F G H E, are equivalent. Paths which do not begin at the same point are considered to be equivalent, provided that, on moving either of them without turning it, but keeping it always parallel to its original position, when its beginning coincides with that of the other path, the ends also coincide. Paths are considered as geometrically added together, when one begins where the other ends; thus the path A E is conceived to be a sum of A B, B C, C D, and D E.
All this is purely conventional. It simply amounts to this: that we choose to call paths having the relations I have described equal or added. But, though it is a convention, it is a convention with a good reason. The rule for geometrical addition may be applied not only to paths, but to any other things which can be represented by paths. Now, as a path is determined by the varying direction and distance of the point which moves over it from the starting-point, it follows that anything which from its beginning to its end is determined by a varying direction and a varying magnitude is capable of being represented by a line. Accordingly, velocities may be represented by lines, for they have only directions and rates. The same thing is true of accelerations, or changes of velocities. This is evident enough in the case of velocities; and it becomes evident for accelerations if we consider that precisely what velocities are to positions — namely, states of change of them — that accelerations are to velocities.
The so-called “parallelogram of forces” is simply a rule for compounding accelerations. The rule is, to represent the accelerations by paths, and then to geometrically add the paths. The geometers, however, not only use the “parallelogram of forces” to compound different accelerations, but also to resolve one acceleration into a sum of several. Let A B, be the path which represents a certain acceleration — say, such a change in the motion of a body that at the end of one second the body will, under the influence of that change, be in a position different from what it would have had if its motion had continued unchanged such that a path equivalent to A B would lead from the latter position to the former. This acceleration may be considered as the sum of the accelerations represented by A C and C B. It may also be considered as the sum of the very different accelerations represented by A D and D B, where A D is almost the opposite of A C. And it is clear that there is an immense variety of ways in which A B might be resolved into the sum of two accelerations.
After this tedious explanation, which I hope, in view of the extraordinary interest of the conception of force, may not have exhausted the reader’s patience, we are prepared at last to state the grand fact which this conception embodies. This fact is that if the actual changes of motion which the different particles of bodies experience are each resolved in its appropriate way, each component acceleration is precisely such as is prescribed by a certain law of Nature, according to which bodies, in the relative positions which the bodies in question actually have at the moment, always receive certain accelerations, which, being compounded by geometrical addition, give the acceleration which the body actually experiences.
This is the only fact which the idea of force represents, and whoever will take the trouble clearly to apprehend what this fact is, perfectly comprehends what force is. Whether we ought to say that a force is an acceleration, or that it causes an acceleration, is a mere question of propriety of language, which has no more to do with our real meaning than the difference between the French idiom “Il fait froid” and its English equivalent “It is cold.” Yet it is surprising to see how this simple affair has muddled men’s minds. In how many profound treatises is not force spoken of as a “mysterious entity,” which seems to be only a way of confessing that the author despairs of ever getting a clear notion of what the word means! In a recent admired work on Analytic Mechanics it is stated that we understand precisely the effect of force, but what force itself is we do not understand! This is simply a self-contradiction. The idea which the word force excites in our minds has no other function than to affect our actions, and these actions can have no reference to force otherwise than through its effects. Consequently, if we know what the effects of force are, we are acquainted with every fact which is implied in saying that a force exists, and there is nothing more to know. The truth is, there is some vague notion afloat that a question may mean something which the mind cannot conceive; and when some hair-splitting philosophers have been confronted with the absurdity of such a view, they have invented an empty distinction between positive and negative conceptions, in the attempt to give their non-idea a form not obviously nonsensical. The nullity of it is sufficiently plain from the considerations given a few pages back; and, apart from those considerations, the quibbling character of the distinction must have struck every mind accustomed to real thinking.
IV
Let us now approach the subject of logic, and consider a conception which particularly concerns it, that of reality. Taking clearness in the sense of familiarity, no idea could be clearer than this. Every child uses it with perfect confidence, never dreaming that he does not understand it. As for clearness in its second grade, however, it would probably puzzle most men, even among those of a reflective turn of mind, to give an abstract definition of the real. Yet such a definition may perhaps be reached by considering the points of difference between reality and its opposite, fiction. A figment is a product of somebody’s imagination; it has such characters as his thought impresses upon it. That those characters are independent of how you or I think is an external reality. There are, however, phenomena within our own minds, dependent upon our thought, which are at the same time real in the sense that we really think them. But though their characters depend on how we think, they do not depend on what we think those characters to be. Thus, a dream has a real existence as a mental phenomenon, if somebody has really dreamt it; that he dreamt so and so, does not depend on what anybody thinks was dreamt, but is completely independent of all opinion on the subject. On the other hand, considering, not the fact of dreaming, but the thing dreamt, it retains its peculiarities by virtue of no other fact than that it was dreamt to possess them. Thus we may define the real as that whose characters are independent of what anybody may think them to be.
But, however satisfactory such a definition may be found, it would be a great mistake to suppose that it makes the idea of reality perfectly clear. Here, then, let us apply our rules. According to them, reality, like every other quality, consists in the peculiar sensible effects which things partaking of it produce. The only effect which real things have is to cause belief, for all the sensations which they excite emerge into consciousness in the form of beliefs. The question therefore is, how is true belief (or belief in the real) distinguished from false belief (or belief in fiction). Now, as we have seen in the former paper, the ideas of truth and falsehood, in their full development, appertain exclusively to the experiential method of settling opinion. A person who arbitrarily chooses the propositions which he will adopt can use the word truth only to emphasize the expression of his determination to hold on to his choice. Of course, the method of tenacity never prevailed exclusively; reason is too natural to men for that. But in the literature of the dark ages we find some fine examples of it. When Scotus Erigena is commenting upon a poetical passage in which hellebore is spoken of as having caused the death of Socrates, he does not hesitate to inform the inquiring reader that Helleborus and Socrates were two eminent Greek philosophers, and that the latter, having been overcome in argument by the former, took the matter to heart and died of it! What sort of an idea of truth could a man have who could adopt and teach, without the qualification of a perhaps, an opinion taken so entirely at random? The real spirit of Socrates, who I hope would have been delighted to have been “overcome in argument,” because he would have learned something by it, is in curious contrast with the naive idea of the glossist, for whom (as for “the born missionary” of today) discussion would seem to have been simply a struggle. When philosophy began to awake from its long slumber, and before theology completely dominated it, the practice seems to have been for each professor to seize upon any philosophical position he found unoccupied and which seemed a strong one, to intrench himself in it, and to sally forth from time to time to give battle to the others. Thus, even the scanty records we possess of those disputes enable us to make out a dozen or more opinions held by different teachers at one time concerning the question of nominalism and realism. Read the opening part of the Historia Calamitatum of Abelard, who was certainly as philosophical as any of his contemporaries, and see the spirit of combat which it breathes. For him, the truth is simply his particular stronghold. When the method of authority prevailed, the truth meant little more than the Catholic faith. All the efforts of the scholastic doctors are directed toward harmonizing their faith in Aristotle and their faith in the Church, and one may search their ponderous folios through without finding an argument which goes any further. It is noticeable that where different faiths flourish side by side, renegades are looked upon with contempt even by the party whose belief they adopt; so completely has the idea of loyalty replaced that of truth-seeking. Since the time of Descartes, the defect in the conception of truth has been less apparent. Still, it will sometimes strike a scientific man that the philosophers have been less intent on finding out what the facts are, than on inquiring what belief is most in harmony with their system. It is hard to convince a follower of the a priori method by adducing facts; but show him that an opinion he is defending is inconsistent with what he has laid down elsewhere, and he will be very apt to retract it. These minds do not seem to believe that disputation is ever to cease; they seem to think that the opinion which is natural for one man is not so for another, and that belief will, consequently, never be settled. In contenting themselves with fixing their own opinions by a method which would lead another man to a different result, they betray their feeble hold of the conception of what truth is.
On the other hand, all the followers of science are animated by a cheerful hope that the processes of investigation, if only pushed far enough, will give one certain solution to each question to which they apply it. One man may investigate the velocity of light by studying the transits of Venus and the aberration of the stars; another by the oppositions of Mars and the eclipses of Jupiter’s satellites; a third by the method of Fizeau; a fourth by that of Foucault; a fifth by the motions of the curves of Lissajoux; a sixth, a seventh, an eighth, and a ninth, may follow the different methods of comparing the measures of statical and dynamical electricity. They may at first obtain different results, but, as each perfects his method and his processes, the results are found to move steadily together toward a destined centre. So with all scientific research. Different minds may set out with the most antagonistic views, but the progress of investigation carries them by a force outside of themselves to one and the same conclusion. This activity of thought by which we are carried, not where we wish, but to a fore-ordained goal, is like the operation of destiny. No modification of the point of view taken, no selection of other facts for study, no natural bent of mind even, can enable a man to escape the predestinate opinion. This great hope is embodied in the conception of truth and reality. The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real. That is the way I would explain reality.
But it may be said that this view is directly opposed to the abstract definition which we have given of reality, inasmuch as it makes the characters of the real depend on what is ultimately thought about them. But the answer to this is that, on the one hand, reality is independent, not necessarily of thought in general, but only of what you or I or any finite number of men may think about it; and that, on the other hand, though the object of the final opinion depends on what that opinion is, yet what that opinion is does not depend on what you or I or any man thinks. Our perversity and that of others may indefinitely postpone the settlement of opinion; it might even conceivably cause an arbitrary proposition to be universally accepted as long as the human race should last. Yet even that would not change the nature of the belief, which alone could be the result of investigation carried sufficiently far; and if, after the extinction of our race, another should arise with faculties and disposition for investigation, that true opinion must be the one which they would ultimately come to. “Truth crushed to earth shall rise again,” and the opinion which would finally result from investigation does not depend on how anybody may actually think. But the reality of that which is real does depend on the real fact that investigation is destined to lead, at last, if continued long enough, to a belief in it.
But I may be asked what I have to say to all the minute facts of history, forgotten never to be recovered, to the lost books of the ancients, to the buried secrets.
“Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark, unfathomed caves of ocean bear;
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.”
Do these things not really exist because they are hopelessly beyond the reach of our knowledge? And then, after the universe is dead (according to the prediction of some scientists), and all life has ceased forever, will not the shock of atoms continue though there will be no mind to know it? To this I reply that, though in no possible state of knowledge can any number be great enough to express the relation between the amount of what rests unknown to the amount of the known, yet it is unphilosophical to suppose that, with regard to any given question (which has any clear meaning), investigation would not bring forth a solution of it, if it were carried far enough. Who would have said, a few years ago, that we could ever know of what substances stars are made whose light may have been longer in reaching us than the human race has existed? Who can be sure of what we shall not know in a few hundred years? Who can guess what would be the result of continuing the pursuit of science for ten thousand years, with the activity of the last hundred? And if it were to go on for a million, or a billion, or any number of years you please, how is it possible to say that there is any question which might not ultimately be solved?
But it may be objected, “Why make so much of these remote considerations, especially when it is your principle that only practical distinctions have a meaning?” Well, I must confess that it makes very little difference whether we say that a stone on the bottom of the ocean, in complete darkness, is brilliant or not — that is to say, that it probably makes no difference, remembering always that that stone may be fished up tomorrow. But that there are gems at the bottom of the sea, flowers in the untraveled desert, etc., are propositions which, like that about a diamond being hard when it is not pressed, concern much more the arrangement of our language than they do the meaning of our ideas.
It seems to me, however, that we have, by the application of our rule, reached so clear an apprehension of what we mean by reality, and of the fact which the idea rests on, that we should not, perhaps, be making a pretension so presumptuous as it would be singular, if we were to offer a metaphysical theory of existence for universal acceptance among those who employ the scientific method of fixing belief. However, as metaphysics is a subject much more curious than useful, the knowledge of which, like that of a sunken reef, serves chiefly to enable us to keep clear of it, I will not trouble the reader with any more Ontology at this moment. I have already been led much further into that path than I should have desired; and I have given the reader such a dose of mathematics, psychology, and all that is most abstruse, that I fear he may already have left me, and that what I am now writing is for the compositor and proof-reader exclusively. I trusted to the importance of the subject. There is no royal road to logic, and really valuable ideas can only be had at the price of close attention. But I know that in the matter of ideas the public prefer the cheap and nasty; and in my next paper I am going to return to the easily intelligible, and not wander from it again. The reader who has been at the pains of wading through this paper, shall be rewarded in the next one by seeing how beautifully what has been developed in this tedious way can be applied to the ascertainment of the rules of scientific reasoning.
We have, hitherto, not crossed the threshold of scientific logic. It is certainly important to know how to make our ideas clear, but they may be ever so clear without being true. How to make them so, we have next to study. How to give birth to those vital and procreative ideas which multiply into a thousand forms and diffuse themselves everywhere, advancing civilization and making the dignity of man, is an art not yet reduced to rules, but of the secret of which the history of science affords some hints.
The writing of Charles Peirce, founder of pragmatism. Even though pragmatism isn’t completely in 1:1 correspondence to physical reality, I don’t see why you call yourself obfuscater.
I don’t see why you call yourself obfuscater.
Cause he/she likes to make things short.
“I don’t see why you call yourself obfuscater.
Cause he/she likes to make things short.”
He/she is long winded, maybe even prolix, but not an obfuscater.
I would like to say that I believe the Universe exists as whatever it is, but it is not “nothing” simply because there is “anything”. humans, stars, minds, thoughts, etc are all NOT “nothings”, therefore they are “something” therefore “something” exists, and these somethings I call the Universe.
As a way to logically prove what I’m saying.. if “no thing” (nothing) existed, then there wouldn’t be anything, including people arguing about weather or not the universe exists. The fact that there’s anything proves there is not nothing.If there was really “nothing” then there wouldn’t be anything at all..
# Demonic Says:
March 7th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
This blog really has a whole scale of pathetic people.
On one level, there’s the bored programmer dude who has a pretty laid back mindset and uses different approaches to try and share his views.
On another level, there’s a bunch of people who have an undying urge to prove their superiority ( over the internet ) by proving someone else wrong ( on the internet ) and thus spend many precious minutes of their short life ( on the internet ) typing long paragraphs to do so.
And on a third level, there’s someone bored enough on a friday night to read this blog and it’s comments instead of going out and having fun.
Also, I’m more interested in the humanity posts of this blog than the developer part. Stone me.
Ftw.
I don’t need to play in order to gain the title of the greatest.
I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was wondering what all is required to get setup? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny? I’m not very internet savvy so I’m not 100% certain. Any suggestions or advice would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks
nike free 3.0 v2 http://www.yaakriveroutfitters.com/?keyword=nike-free-3.0-v2&id=2410
Do you have a spam issue on this blog; I also am a blogger, and I was curious about your situation; many of us have developed some nice practices and we are looking to swap techniques with others, be sure to shoot me an e-mail if interested.
nike air max 90 baby blues http://www.centi.org/?keyword=nike-air-max-90-baby-blues&id=561
Piekielnie dobry tekst, zalecam ludziom
Producent placów zabaw
Well I guess I don’t have to spend the weekend fignriug this one out!
Váºy là muốn coi tụi ở quá khứ thỉ Ä‘i coi manga , muốn coi tụi bất lá»±c thì coi novel :|Váºy chắc mấy cái quá khứ tÆ°Æ¡ng lai không có liên quan đâu hen ?? 😐
Citaatje van het ANP:“Het ANP heeft gedurende het onderzoek een grote lijst met lokale nieuwsmedia aangelegd. Bovendien blijkt het vrijwel overal relatief eenvoudig te zijn om het lokale bestuur online te volgen, uitzonderingen daargelaten.”Dat betekent dat er dus helemaal geen probleem is. Die lijst en gegevens die duidelijk maken dat het “overal relatief eenvoudig: is om lokaal bestuur te volgen zijn kennelijk openbaar, immers verzameld met die 3 ton. Waar kan ik die vinden?