Dumbest Quotes used on OT

  • 88 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Goyoshi12
Goyoshi12

9687

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 16

User Lists: 0

#51 Goyoshi12
Member since 2009 • 9687 Posts

Everything you say.

Avatar image for BossPerson
BossPerson

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 BossPerson
Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

Just read my blog and many lulz will be had.

MakeMeaSammitch
lol, good read
Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#53 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#54 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

"mhm" "smh"-dave

"man" "bro"-kk

"........"-LJS

"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockMithrandir50

do me

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#55 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.

coolbeans90

You should read Platos "The Republic". Maybe you will realise you're a technocrat.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#56 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave

"man" "bro"-kk

"........"-LJS

"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockcoolbeans90

do me

"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave

"man" "bro"-kk

"........"-LJS

"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockLaihendi

do me

"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."

That only makes him a logical person lai.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#58 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Having read Atlas Shrugged, I don't think there's anything wrong with the quote in the OP. I p. much came to the realization that I was no longer a libertarian upon finishing it.

frannkzappa

You should read Platos "The Republic". Maybe you will realise you're a technocrat.

I have read it, and it didn't leave me with any such impression. It was a philosophical exercise that didn't address real world problems associated with centralized power structures left solely to their own devices.

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#59 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

do me

frannkzappa

"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."

That only makes him a logical person lai.

No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#60 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] "I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."Laihendi

That only makes him a logical person lai.

No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

Avatar image for coolbeans90
coolbeans90

21305

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#61 coolbeans90
Member since 2009 • 21305 Posts

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Mithrandir50"]"mhm" "smh"-dave

"man" "bro"-kk

"........"-LJS

"something pretentious and douchy"-worlockLaihendi

do me

"I used to be a libertarian, and that somehow lends credibility to my statist ideology."

moar like:

"I used to be a libertarian until I realized that libertarianism as a movement has problems which were clearly illustrated by a popular book amongst libertarian circles, problems with both its disconcerting dogma and, worse, its cultish following."

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#62 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

That only makes him a logical person lai.

frannkzappa

No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#63 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

That only makes him a logical person lai.

frannkzappa

No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#64 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.Laihendi

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.

let me give you an example:John Galt

Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.

Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.

Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#65 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] No it does not. There is nothing logical about aggressive violence.Laihendi

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.

It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.

Avatar image for Shottayouth13-
Shottayouth13-

7018

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#66 Shottayouth13-
Member since 2009 • 7018 Posts

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

No TC I'm pretty sure that quip is common among those who have read Atlas Shrugged as well.

But for dumb quotes, take pretty much anything that hartsick or Laihendi says.

heeweesRus

What? No! Laihendi is easily the most intelligent user OT has ever known.

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!!!

Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#67 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

frannkzappa

What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.

let me give you an example:John Galt

Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.

Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.

So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#68 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

Statism has nothing to do with uncalled for violence. A logical person would see this.

You lai are illogical and a lover of wealth the lowest form of man...like John Galt.

frannkzappa

You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.

It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.

So then you advocate a voluntary libertarian technocratic society rather than an authoritarian one? Because if it were logical for people to freely consent to a government without being compelled by force then there would be no reason for that government to be authoritarian.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#69 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
"Sex between two people inclined towards dominance is a struggle between two heroic individuals. It is a struggle of strength against strength, and virtue against virtue. Sex between two submissive people is the opposite of that." Because this kind of sex is a mess. Not in the fun way either.
Avatar image for darthkaiser
Darthkaiser

12447

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 0

#70 Darthkaiser
Member since 2006 • 12447 Posts

If you're super old school, you'll remember this. Good times. :lol:

pZvAnBU.jpg

Yama
Gamespot ICE! lovely theme I miss it :(
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#71 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"]"Sex between two people inclined towards dominance is a struggle between two heroic individuals. It is a struggle of strength against strength, and virtue against virtue. Sex between two submissive people is the opposite of that." Because this kind of sex is a mess. Not in the fun way either.

A celebration of strength and virtue is not a mess.
Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#72 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]"Sex between two people inclined towards dominance is a struggle between two heroic individuals. It is a struggle of strength against strength, and virtue against virtue. Sex between two submissive people is the opposite of that." Because this kind of sex is a mess. Not in the fun way either.

A celebration of strength and virtue is not a mess.

Virtue isn't typically associated with good sex.
Avatar image for Laihendi
Laihendi

5872

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#73 Laihendi
Member since 2009 • 5872 Posts
[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]"Sex between two people inclined towards dominance is a struggle between two heroic individuals. It is a struggle of strength against strength, and virtue against virtue. Sex between two submissive people is the opposite of that." Because this kind of sex is a mess. Not in the fun way either.

A celebration of strength and virtue is not a mess.

Virtue isn't typically associated with good sex.

You are probably thinking of virtue in the Christian sense, which is a corruption of its proper meaning. Virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps a value. In popular usage virtue has come to be associated with immoral Christian values and has become synonymous with the suppression of desires that contradict those irrational values.
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#74 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]What is lowly about appreciating material wealth? We live in a material world. Material wealth is what enables us to pursue our intellectual interests. Look at the intellectual work being done in materially rich nations (US for example) and compare it to destitute countries such as Zimbabwe.Laihendi

let me give you an example:John Galt

Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.

Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.

So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything.

I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".

lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.

What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).

Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.

The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.

Avatar image for Ace6301
Ace6301

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#75 Ace6301
Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] A celebration of strength and virtue is not a mess.

Virtue isn't typically associated with good sex.

You are probably thinking of virtue in the Christian sense, which is a corruption of its proper meaning. Virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps a value. In popular usage virtue has come to be associated with immoral Christian values and has become synonymous with the suppression of desires that contradict those irrational values.

I bet you still have your virtue. In a Christian sense.
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#76 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] You cannot enforce an authoritarian government without violence, or the threat of violence.Laihendi

It is in a logical persons best interest to go along with a proper technocratic government. A logical person would realize that a person has more freedom, happiness and fulfillment as part of a well organized,regulated and governed collective.

So then you advocate a voluntary libertarian technocratic society rather than an authoritarian one? Because if it were logical for people to freely consent to a government without being compelled by force then there would be no reason for that government to be authoritarian.

No, what you claim asserts that there are no hostile foreign parties, nor illogical people. An authoritarian government is necessary to protect from foreign intrusion and radical anti-government individuals. Most people do not know what is best for them.

Avatar image for dave123321
dave123321

35554

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#77 dave123321
Member since 2003 • 35554 Posts
Lai is a friend
Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#78 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

let me give you an example:John Galt

Galt was of the lowest order of man I.E the lovers of wealth. He was a simple self-dstructive charactor who is emulated by the worst politicians and con artists. Galt in his credit had good intentions but he was blinded by primal self intrest and the higher levels of his mind and spirit wasted away in non-use.

Galt was also blinded by base instincts and was unable to focus his mind on important things. His life and goals were shallow and meaningless. Once again he falls to the bottom of the pyramid. Galt never acted according to reason and rarely acted with spirit. Galt was a boring irrational character representing the lowest form of humanity.

frannkzappa

So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything.

I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".

lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.

What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).

Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.

The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.

If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.
Avatar image for heeweesRus
heeweesRus

5492

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#79 heeweesRus
Member since 2012 • 5492 Posts
Lai is a frienddave123321
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#80 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]So you have pictures of pyramids with the lowest section labeled as "lovers of money"? Someone could just as easily make a pyramid with the bottom section labeled "spirited emotions". What does "spirited emotion" even mean? What is "unspirited" about about recognizing the necessity of material wealth for life on a material world? What is a high value? What makes it better than the low values? What is lowly about the material? You are not actually explaining anything. PannicAtack

I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".

lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.

What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).

Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.

The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.

If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.

Plato was a visionary, but not the be all end all. Make sure to read the book in context.

Avatar image for PannicAtack
PannicAtack

21040

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#81 PannicAtack
Member since 2006 • 21040 Posts

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I was under the impression you had read " The Republic".

lets start with the first pyramid. It describes the three people of this world. The most populace and least constructive to the greater whole are the lovers of money. the lovers of money are a broad range of people. they can be scientists, engineers, politicians or construction workers. they all dedicate their lives to material wealth. while this is not ideal it is not a sin either. It is a byproduct of a broken economic system which stifles the motives of man. These people be them intelligent or dull do not reason for the sake of knowledge or understanding but instead do so in order to accomplish a mundane task. Now for the lovers of honor. They are much less populace and consist of the armed forces and anyone who dedicates themselves to the administration of the common wealth. These people risk there lives for others for the sake of communal welfare and esteem of their peers. The smallest class, located at the top of the utopian society described in the Republic, consists of those men and women who dedicate their lives to the pursuit of knowledge. They pursue knowledge not to be more efficient professionals or sophisticated moneymakers, but because they consider knowledge and insight to be the highest and most desirable goal for human beings. Discovery and learning ever new things is their greatest delight, and comprehensive understanding their chosen meaning of life. They are dedicated to an existence of analysis and contemplation, to a life of the mind.

What the first pyramid describes is how a society should be structured from bottom to top with ascending legeslative power (with the bottom having none).

Now for the second pyramid. this pyramid describes what constitutes a healthy human being. But first lets get some definitions. Basic appetites are just that, they are thirst, hunger, sex drive...etc. Next is spirited emotions which are things like courage, anger, ambition or any ideology. the highest is reason or logic.

The Bottom layer is what is necessary to live. if you have only that you are an animal. the second layer should reign over the first. It should make you happy,fulfilled, sentient and well adjusted. the third layer should rule over the second, thus providing man with the ability to truly understand the world and let him affect it in-spite himself.

frannkzappa

If I have the attention span necessary I'll read the Republic, but considering a number of things it espouses in its theoretical system (massive censorship, for example) don't sound all that appealing.

Plato was a visionary, but not the be all end all. Make sure to read the book in context.

Fair enough.
Avatar image for deactivated-5e9044657a310
deactivated-5e9044657a310

8136

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

#82 deactivated-5e9044657a310
Member since 2005 • 8136 Posts
Off-Topic has become System Wars Tier mundane
Avatar image for Mithrandir50
Mithrandir50

809

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#83 Mithrandir50
Member since 2013 • 809 Posts

Well I'm glad that this thread didn't turn into a political shitfest....

oh.

"smh"-dave. 

Avatar image for deactivated-5b1e62582e305
deactivated-5b1e62582e305

30778

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#84 deactivated-5b1e62582e305
Member since 2004 • 30778 Posts

Why read Plato when Aristotle exists and is infinitely better?

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

180229

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#85 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 180229 Posts
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] A celebration of strength and virtue is not a mess.

Virtue isn't typically associated with good sex.

You are probably thinking of virtue in the Christian sense, which is a corruption of its proper meaning. Virtue is the action by which one gains and keeps a value. In popular usage virtue has come to be associated with immoral Christian values and has become synonymous with the suppression of desires that contradict those irrational values.

Virtue is basically a positive ie morally good. . You can select various different groups throughout history but virtue has been about being good in some fashion. Ayn Rand corrupted the meaning of the word in the 1900s not the other way around. If you're going to promote something then at least learn the history. You are wrong....wrong....wrong.
Avatar image for frannkzappa
frannkzappa

3003

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#86 frannkzappa
Member since 2012 • 3003 Posts

Why read Plato when Aristotle exists and is infinitely better?

Aljosa23

Aristotle is the worst thing Plato ever had anything to do with. Never in human history has so much wrong been concentrated in one man.

Avatar image for MrPraline
MrPraline

21351

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#87 MrPraline
Member since 2008 • 21351 Posts
Lai is a frienddave123321
Avatar image for yellosnolvr
yellosnolvr

19302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#88 yellosnolvr
Member since 2005 • 19302 Posts
"john cena wasn't a fourth generation conch fritter addict for nothing"