/kc/ - Krautchan

 >>/29501/
> attempt to archive contentment
Achieve?

 >>/29502/
Yes, thanks.

 >>/29501/
That depends on the zeitgeist, no?
Ofc material goods, possessions, satisfying the physical needs, pampering the body, and other enjoyments are "eternal" things for human beans. 
I think what we seek first as the source of contentment is in our infanthood is the love of our parents. Yes we cry and moan when no food, shit in the diaper, tummy aches, etc but the actual happiness of the child comes from the "communion" with his/her parents and it's absence can really distort the development of the bean.

 >>/29505/
> That depends on the zeitgeist, no?

I think, no. Children are oriented to the outer world, they are so curious about it. Building machines, playing with animals, investigating every corner. And the grown ones (parents) have to answer a lot of "why" questions.

I consider myself a materialist but in a positive way. I.e., I deny most metaphysics and most modern physics that derive from metaphysics and Greek philosophy, but I do believe in God, as a unitary physical being. The Bible is wholly "materialist" in this manner as was most mythology.

cover jpg
(92.08 KB, 600x900)

Another good book on the topic, which breaks down pretty hard concepts as quantum theory. Would recommend.
Some highlights:
1. Space is essentially a gravitational field.
2. Space is not continuous, but rather granulated.
3. Time is not a real entity.

 >>/29507/
> And the grown ones (parents) have to answer a lot of "why" questions.
That's because parents have orientated the child towards asking "why" questions, it's the only reason children rationalize the world through intellectual authority, and not material. Children don't understand causality well, they don't know what they're asking by the word "why", whether they mean the cause or the reason. They're not curious about what they're asking, they've only learned that the question "why" always has an answer to it and so it's a free pass for getting attention in any situation.

The question "why" always molds itself to the answer that anybody is willing to give, it doesn't have rhetorical strength besides essentially being an order: "tell me why". That's what children are interested in. If they ask why is there a plane in the sky, they don't scrutinize the more valid answer between "it's not on the ground" or "it flew up there", all they need is any answer at all. How they come to understand the world  afterwards depends on the answer.

 >>/25106/
> and yet people freak out when someone take video of them
It fits perfectly with my theory of mind on other people. Rather, all people.

Instinctively people do know that the use for records is a malicious one; it would be if they filmed you. Especially in an increasingly feminine world, the purpose of putting others in spotlight is to hide yourself in a smaller spotlight, so you both get fame but only the biggest celebrity suffers the risk. It's like the trick to survive an angry bear, you don't outrun the bear, you outrun the guy next to you. But average people want the bear to be around because they are the ones who want to see the maulings, from a safe distance. Public executions are not an excaption to peak human compassion, they ARE the peak of human compassion.

 >>/33242/
They also ask many "what is this" and "what is that". Then usually follow up with whys.
I do agree the growing human nervous system needs a certain maturity to be capable of comprehend causality. Yes they are also enjoy the attention of the parent and the time spent together, but they are also curious about the world, asking questions about things is part of the ontogenesis, it's a biological program in them, which is more instinctive than conscious (later they might learn consciously about the world, some people just never do). The parents do well to feed the kid with answers, this is how encourage the children to be curious about the world, to find answers, which is a handy skill throughout the whole life. This also helps with fear. The unknown is a big fear inducing source, those who get to know stuff won't fear that particular stuff. Those who are curious will attempt to gain knowledge instead of fearing something unknown, and this will help them overcome obstacles. This also gives confidence in themselves and dealing with their environment.
Dogs work the same, those who grow up investigating objects, people, whatever around them won't be cowards, they'll become more calm (who won't get scared by unknown object, sounds, people, etc.) and friendly.
Do you view this inquiring behaviour of kids solely as a way of control, practicing power?

> Public executions are not an excaption to peak human compassion, they ARE the peak of human compassion.
What do you mean by that?

thought png
(29.68 KB, 462x596)

Swebernd put forward the idea that "our thoughts aren't our own".
I'm curious how he arrived to this conclusion. Or should I say how someone else arrived instead of him? What Bernd think of it? What others think of it instead of Bernd?

 >>/38501/
I think in some cases there may be some merit to it, such as with Schizophrenia and OCD. But in the context it was used, where he is worrying about issues with the law because of something he has done, I don't think so.

 >>/38502/
Yeah, he most likely used in different way than mental illnesses. Or who knows. Probably I would argue, but I don't know his standpoint, so anything I out forward would be my assumption what he meant.

daemons jpg
(215.98 KB, 458x573)

 >>/38501/

This is very philosophical question. There are plenty of different kinds of answers, but they may be grouped into two big groups: materialistic and not. 

Materialistic way depends on current scientific (excluding psychology) concept, and it says that there is no separate "person" in your body, it is only abstraction that we use to describe everything. Subconscious is also abstraction, because brain makes decision "as a whole", and thought process that you have in your mind (i.e. "choose this or that") is just a "reasoning part" of you, not separate thing that decides what to do. Decision is formed by you as a whole and thoughts only used to represent it. Even parts of your body influence this, like when you have stomach pain, you tend to be more negative in everything. So, your thoughts are your own, because there is nothing else. But "your own" is not about "mind", but about you as a living person, you can't separate some part of your brain from complete thought process. And any mental illness is just a state when parts of your body (mostly brain) work untypically, so your behavior is non-standard. But it is still you. 

Non-materialistic way is often about duality of mind and body. Or soul and body, if you are religious. With that separation, you can have some foreign thoughts that not directly made by your mind, but influenced by something else (body, when you have addictions, or evil demons when you believe in them etc).

not-my-fault jpg
(104.26 KB, 547x503)

 >>/38530/
In religions (for example in Buddhism) the body's ego is the false one, which changes with every life. In fact we probably don't even hear ourselves until we reach enlightenment. Then it doesn't really matter because self isn't exist anymore, it was an illusion in the first place.

Related to Buddhism. I think it's new age stuff. Those self help books and motivational speakers and whatevers, and this mindfulness thing copypasted out of Buddhism, they frequently talk about the quietening of the thoughts since they are interfering noises and have to be shut down. They are baed, mkay. I find this a load of bs, even tho it's a good thing if someone can concentrate when needed without getting distracted.
The basis I think is, that lots of people's inner voice isn't helpful, but say such stuff "you won't manage", "you will fail", "this is pointless", etc etc, and propel people to give up or not even start stuff, and prevent them to be successful. Probably this comes from their childhood, when they tried to explore the "world" (like little kids tasting anything they grab), their capabilities, implement their ideas, doing whatever, and their parents constantly harassed them to not do this, not do that, warning them they'll hurt themselves, or saying they can't or incapable of doing they want to do. Basically the result of faulty parenting. So in a way it isn't really their voices, but echos of their parent's, grandparents (or the teachers in kindergartens, nurseries) etc.
But not everyone has these negative voices. Someone has encouraging thoughts, or narrating, explaining ones, which helps them process what they do.
And this leads to a problem what I have this "your thoughts aren't your thoughts" thing. Thoughts are starting points of actions, and if my thoughts aren't mine, it's easy to arrive conclusions such as: "my actions aren't mine". It takes off the responsibility, "oh I did a bad thing? it's not may fault". But then we don't get just bad thoughts but good ones, we don't do just bad actions, then those people who claim their thoughts not theirs... will they disclaim their good actions? The good results, the successes?

Wisdom here: "your thoughts aren't your thoughts" 

So we ask "why do I think that I am having these thoughts?" I know, personally, that many of my thoughts are just noise in the machinery of the language part of my brain.

The more you think, the less you know. Really! Nothing makes  sense unless you posit a god or a simulator (essentially indistinguishable). If you want an explanation you have committed to a view of everything which rests on the monkey-brain fiction of causality.

Therefore thinking is unprincipled and can be justified only by its fruits.
Look at those delicious fruits:
[exercise for the student]
Who do you think is directing this thread?
?

 >>/38555/
If they derive from or involve some other source, then they aren't wholly "your thoughts", that's for sure.

 >>/38555/

Darling Denmark, You are of course, indefeasibly correct.

My thoughts oscillate about some things which make no sense. Stupidly that includes Laura & Valensaiya.

 >>/38555/
https://www.bookdepository.com/AN-AMAZING-JOURNEY-INTO-THE-PSYCHOTIC-MIND---BREAKING-THE-SPELL-OF-THE-IVORY-TOWER-Jerry-Marzinsky-Sherry-Swiney/9780359783366

Read it.

 >>/38558/
Really? You want me to read some overlong halfwit Freudian superstition. I skimmed it because you were so insistent. Are you one of the authors?

I might suggest that you lack the gene for humour.Look it up.

 >>/38555/
> thinking is unprincipled and can be justified only by its fruits
Common saying, judge a man by his actions.
If all our random thoughts would be displayed publicly everyone (well not psychopaths) would be ashamed all the time.
> Who do you think is directing this thread?
> Der evige Hun

 >>/38556/
This is another good point. Ideas can be implanted, thoughts can be provoked, even by just hinting.

I did read that book. It made me feel cleverer than I deserve.
I also read Penrose's book. It starts gently and then accelerates to the point that I know I'm too stupid to understnd.
I fuckin love science!

face-of-buddhist-terr... jpg
(110.89 KB, 735x490)

 >>/38556/
> If they derive from or involve some other source, then they aren't wholly "your thoughts", that's for sure.

Can thought exist without other source? Brain always has some external stimulation. Even in these special isolated chambers your body feels something (and eyes see nothing - it is also a source for thoughts in your brain).

 >>/38559/
> halfwit Freudian superstition
how are demons freudian superstitions?

Eve's Shame... jpg
(303.99 KB, 533x800)

 >>/38578/ et al.
I wish to unconditionally retract all of my posts. I was, as you probably detected, drunkposting to the max. My shame is horrendous. Thank God for anonymity.

 >>/38583/
"Highest Serious Discussion Per Post on Endchan"

french boomer jpg
(81.22 KB, 528x424)

 >>/38583/
> I was, as you probably detected, drunkposting to the max

It's ok. It happens

Always a physics thread degenerates into nonsense. It's built into our genome.
Bernd should be capable of better things than TV watchers, don't you think?

 >>/38600/
1. It's a philosophy thread.
2. Physics is nonsense.
3. You could have wrote something meaningful relating to whatever point the thread originally had. You did not.

 >>/38602/
Your barrage of 1,2,3 is intended to intimidate, but you're talking to a drunken fistfighter. You are wrong in every navigable dimension, and I think you know it. A joke is a joke but you should  polish your material bit more.

 >>/38603/
You read a couple of lines of mine and your thought:
> intimidating
Noice.

 >>/38604/
I have a lot sympathy for incontinent old gentlemen whose minds have deserted them.
I know that wishes for your future are essentially meaningless, so I just wish you a peaceful death

 >>/38501/
I have self diagnosed OCD, I think it's fairly safe to assume since the backs of my hands have become so dry and worn out through washing that they are cracking and bleeding.

It's caused by a faulty trigger in the brain that fails to activate when you complete a task. So you never feel you have washed your hands enough or whatever it is and it always bothers you even though you know it is absurd. This goes on to thoughts as well, you always doubt and lie to yourself to become your own worst enemy. If the sky is blue and you know it's blue you will doubt it over and over and keep trying to prove that it's blue and find evidence that it's blue(this is just an example not to be taken literally), if you like something you will keep telling yourself that you don't or vice versa. Your thoughts are always fighting against you, you know it's absurd but you can't help it, you can't stop making connections, you can't stop doubting obvious facts and checking them over and over even if you can see the evidence in front of you. OCD has been linked with schizophrenia and Autism(I was diagnosed with the latter) I can see how they connect, like they are three sides of the same coin.

 >>/38635/
So you would agree that both the rational and irrational thoughts are yours. The negative, uncomfortable, self-destructive too.

 >>/38635/
 >>/38635/
> cracking and bleeding
You havent heard of hand balm? coconut oil?

You probably have a bad gut flora, thats causing the ocd and autism

 >>/38636/
Not really, because they are not what I actually think or believe. It's my brain trolling myself because it knows that I don't believe it and it knows it bothers me, that's also why it makes connections between things I like and hate, it knows it bothers me so if I do something good one day and something bad happens or I think or hear about something bad my brain will try to connect the two to frustrate me.

 >>/38640/
It's probably better in the long run to just let it happen, I should be finding a way to fight the OCD not play along with it.

No, it's environmental. Last year I would not have even said I had OCD but just that I had some OCD like tendencies, then my living situation changed and stress came with that which triggered this and it can rapidly escalate. It tends to snowball, if you tell yourself that you tapped another key while logging in to the computer so you have to restart the computer then you will restart every time you do that from now on but on top of that if you do anything else while logging in you will add that to the list of things that you need to restart for, it's a slippery slope. But as I said, it's caused or exacerbated by my living conditions so once I find a new house it should get better.

 >>/38645/
stress causing ocd sounds like a plausible explanation

 >>/38647/
From an evolutionary perspective it does as well, usually stress would entail danger so OCD like traits might really have helped our ancestors survive in situations like that.

Apparently it's linked to Neurogenesis as well, well that depression and schizophrenia. Stress can create chemicals that decrease the natural rate of Neurogenesis and it's been seen that SSRIs actually promote Neurogenesis and that if you give a patient(I think a patient but it might have been a mouse study) SSRIs yet at the same time you inhibit Neurogenesis then it does not cure depression, so it may be that is what causes it. Exercise also promotes Neurogenesis.

 >>/41532/
as I can see it there is 3 explanations all can be valid.

vaccines causing damage to our brains. all these various heavy metals, plastics, animal hormones etc which damage the brain. autism rates have skyrrocketed for example.

stress which is just the bodys inability to produce enough energy. I myself can relate to this, I get mild ocd when life gets too hard. I used to look at it from a mostly metabolic viewpoint but I think the psykodynamic angle is the most important.

psycodynamic conflicts which are unresolved. which then cause disease. the usual theory what causes cancer is a load of bs to me, just like most things are a lie in the world today. 

interesting article about serotonin and stress (brain energy)

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/serotonin-depression-aggression.shtml

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/dark-side-of-stress-learned-helplessness.shtml

Maybe this should go into politics.
I want to write about unconditional love. Now just as generic love one could feel towards relatives, or pets too, and not exclusively toward romantic partners.
How I see it, unconditional love is really nice thing. Accepting someone else how that person is, with their faults, and without any expectations. The problem is that it is demanded to escape the control of conditional love. Or even worse, to turn the table and subject you to conditional love from the loved one.
Society is hierarchical, even the smallest component of it, the family too is hierarchical. Even if we put two random persons next to each other one will control the situation, make decisions, and the other will follow.
It's the norm to love our spouse, our kids. But someone has to make decisions. If not you, then your spouse and your kids will decide themselves. And if you let it, they will decide for you too (remember what I wrote about power back then).
Let's say you have a kid, stupidest motherfucker who don't want to learn. As a parent you have the power to decide that he has to learn. So you are kind to him when he does his homework. Pet his head, tell kind words, buy a toy (video game) or whatever. He will mistake these manifestations of affection with love, and will think you only love him if he he learns, and you hate him if he's stupid. So he'll demand unconditional love (when he becomes teenager and starts to get it how stuff works and believe himself as a genius for that, but in reality he still knows jack shit), but not for the love itself, but to get rid off your demands of him doing his homework.
Same with spouse.
> if you'd love me you'd let me
> a. fuck the whole neighbourhood
> b. grow my fat ass to giant proportions
> c. spend all our (your) money on clothes
> d. lazy all day and let the house look and smell like a garbage dump
> e. [whatever she shouldn't do]
So she just wants to make her own stupid decisions.
Ofc, you can be the stupidest motherfucker and even the spider in the corner would make better decisions, but this isn't about that.

And even worse, when they want respect unconditionally. And respect is a thing that has to be earned, it can only exist on conditions.
Or if we go by Machiavelli's definition, respect is love + fear. So they want you to love and fear them at the same time. Which means to obey their decisions.
Unconditional love is one of the scams our modern society paddles. Another tool to destroy the traditional structures.

Maybe unconditional love can exist between peers, like siblings. And children should love their parents unconditionally (and in the beginning parents are like gods to kids) let's not dwell in the shitty parents and parenting problem now.

Looking it differently.
A parent ofc should love their kids unconditionally. See their faults and shortcomings. But that doesn't mean he shouldn't help them overcome these. Same with spouse. Failures and mistakes aren't there to be happy about them (well one can be happy for them to show what needs chiseling) but to learn from them and do "better". Because of the love the parent goes out of his way to help, and not leave them as is.
Well, if we suppose there is development, or it matters what happens with anyone, or how they fare.

 >>/45976/
 >>/45977/
 >>/45981/
Well, unconditional love as in unconditional tolerance and endorsement isn't a deep love. If you really love someone you'll try to prevent them from engaging in self-destructive behavior.

> unconditional love
> on condition that X shares my genes or fucks with me to propagate my genes
You are robot.

 >>/45981/
> A parent ofc should love their kids unconditionally

depends tbh. I've seen some very nasty people and the way they treat their kids. That's not always tru though

 >>/45996/
I do agree in general.
> prevent them from engaging in self-destructive behavior.
But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need? I have a pal who had no aim in life and engaged in self-destructive behaviour until the very edge of breaking, which in the end motivated him to change things.
But in general I agree with you even with this because many people can do that and go over the edge, never getting off from the downward slope.

 >>/45998/
> on condition that X shares my genes or fucks with me to propagate my genes
Wait, you're talking about incest?

 >>/45999/
> depends tbh. I've seen some very nasty people and the way they treat their kids. 
Yes, I mentioned in spoiler similar scenario.

cat-just-want-people-... jpg
(46.62 KB, 507x504)

 >>/45996/

This.

And even term "unconditional" doesn't mean that there will be all-forgiveness.

 >>/46021/
> But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need?

We don't, but as imperfect and irrational human beings, we think that we do. 

Although sometimes we really know better, but society likes to highlight wrong cases more.

I don't think there is such absolutely "unconditional love". There is real love, either passional or filial, which is, ultimately, a willingness to sacrifice one's own life to keep and protect the loved one, and there are lower degrees of affection. But even love, when considered as a human emotion rather than an abstract, poetic, atemporal concept or inspiration, turns out to be conditional, if on nothing else, at least on Entropy, God of Destruction.
 >>/46021/
> But do we know better then them? Do we really know what they need?

Basically, "yes". If passional love, then because this is a burning and possessive love then we will believe that we do know better. If parental love, then in most cases we certainly do know better

Btw, I really hate the Anglo banalization and bastardization of the word and concept "love". In English somebody might say he "loves" ice cream, for example...

 >>/46065/
> Btw, I really hate the Anglo banalization and bastardization of the word and concept "love". In English somebody might say he "loves" ice cream, for example...

Speaking like a true Hungarian. Like there was any doubt.