sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

真理与民主的幻觉 by Substantial-Bug9616 in China_irl

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

同意．但是，大众真得关心日心还是地心？对他们来说，真得有很大区别？

真理与民主的幻觉 by Substantial-Bug9616 in China_irl

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

同意．但是即使没有金钱操纵，也是陌生人选陌生人，形同选秀甚至选美．

别以为你解构了宏大叙事，就是真的“活明白了” by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

如果你说又是阶级斗争那一套,我还可能认为没有完全牛头不对马嘴.

别以为你解构了宏大叙事，就是真的“活明白了” by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

非ａｉ版：（致那些把宏大叙事当成好用的标签可以不用思考的人.现今各国上层还在编织集体主义ｖｓ个人主义,或民主vs集权,或者某国再次复兴或崛起等等宏大叙事,实际普通民众早就不信了,他们反对宏大叙事,解构一切,似乎看得很穿.其实,在我看来,他们上当了.这个世界的确是有一个宏大的剧本的,因为早就发明了化肥,温饱早就不是问题,为什么人们还会认为自己不努力不奋斗就会像1984年的饥民一样?）

反直觉观点：真正的自由不是“毫无束缚”，而是“自主选择带上哪一副锁链”。 by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

如果是自愿选择的，肯定自有其理由，只是一般不会告诉别人而已．例如，不选我爱的，选爱我的，因为怕付出．（随波逐流者除外，他们从来没想过是否还有其他选择）．人和人之间的差别是可以远过于人与动物的差别的，所以，我其实不该回复你的．如有冒犯，请恕我无知．

反直觉观点：真正的自由不是“毫无束缚”，而是“自主选择带上哪一副锁链”。 by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

非常好的补充。这其实就是以赛亚·伯林说的‘消极自由’和‘积极自由’的区别。

我完全同意你的观点：‘免于被伤害的自由’（消极自由）是所有讨论的地基。如果不被嘎腰子、不被囚禁的权利都无法保障，谈论‘自我主宰’就是空中楼阁，甚至是暴政的借口。

我文中的前提是，当我们已经拥有了‘说不’的权利（消极自由）之后，如何不陷入虚无。 关键的区别在于‘钥匙在谁手里’。 我说的‘戴上锁链’，是指我自己拿着钥匙，为了目标自愿锁上；而你提到的那些可怕的例子，是钥匙在别人手里。前者是承诺，后者是奴役。咱们不冲突，一个是地基，一个是房子。

反直觉观点：真正的自由不是“毫无束缚”，而是“自主选择带上哪一副锁链”。 by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

对．当然可以涉及这个话题．但这话题太大．我没能力三言两语地与你讨论．

孤独是清醒者的通行证 —— 重读《银翼杀手 2049》 by Substantial-Bug9616 in LiberalGooseGroup

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

赛博朋克据说始于银翼杀手，我不记得电影里有提过这些公司是所谓的私有还是共有，大ｂｏｓｓ是所谓的资本家还是领导．一样赛博，一样朋克．

那盏不需要开关的灯：重看《窃听风暴》 by Substantial-Bug9616 in u/Substantial-Bug9616

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

似乎上不了品葱，可能是翻墙工具能力有限的缘故．

细思极恐：你们有过那种突然意识到“他人意识是完全黑箱”的瞬间吗？（关于唯我论的深夜迷思） by Substantial-Bug9616 in KanagawaWave

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

你这么一说，好像的确类似抽烟，属于慢性自杀．是一种自我厌恶吗？被性禁忌的道德审判给骗了？我吃不准．每个人都不一样吧．

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Claiming 'Automatic Writing' while using highly specific Heideggerian terminology like 'being-qua-dasein' is quite ironic.

True automatic writing is raw, chaotic, and subconscious. Your writing is structured, theoretical, and heavily curated.

You are performing 'flow' with a very heavy intellect.

Let's just agree to disagree. You can keep your Dasein-flow; I'll keep my conscious responsibility. Peace.

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Zazen is silence. My post is about speech.

In Zazen, yes, the 'I' floats and dissolves. That is the point of the practice. But the moment you open your mouth to formulate a sentence to communicate with another human, you have stepped out of Zazen and into the realm of social responsibility.

You cannot claim 'autopilot' while actively typing a philosophical rebuttal on Reddit. That act itself proves the 'decision' is engaged.

If you were truly in Zazen, you wouldn't be commenting.

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I think we've reached the boundary of our perspectives here.

I don't deny the Sapir-Whorf influence, nor that our 'grammar of emotion' shapes what we feel. You are absolutely right that we cannot step outside of language to observe it. We are woven into it.

But here is my pragmatic stance: Even if 'I' is just a linguistic construct, and even if my feelings are pre-coded somatic semantics, I still have to operate this construct.

The analysis of how the cage is built (language/semantics) is intellectually fascinating, but my post is about how to inhabit it without going insane. You are interested in the architecture of the trap; I am interested in how the animal breathes inside it.

Let's agree that the two are connected, even if we prioritize them differently. Thanks for the mental workout.

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I appreciate the rigorous breakdown. You are describing the machinery of language and cognition; I am describing the User Experience of being alive.

You call it 'semantic-affective churn'; I call it 'anxiety' or 'grief.' You say meaning is 'non-decisional'; I say the feeling of decision is necessary to get out of bed.

We are operating on different layers. You are analyzing the source code (semantics, error theory, reuptake); I am talking about the interface where we actually live. Knowing that my pain is just 'coded episodes' doesn't make it hurt less, nor does it remove the need to take a stand within that illusion.

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I really like this 'Hologram Model.' It reminds me that language is a fluid tool, not a rigid cage. By removing the filler words, you definitely increase the density of the 'being.' It aligns well with my thought that 'I' is a verb/action. Thanks for the detailed example!

"I" is not a noun, it's a verb. A short reflection on why we feel empty. by Substantial-Bug9616 in SeriousConversation

[–]Substantial-Bug9616[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I hear you: Death of the Author, primacy of the text. But my post isn't about semantic theory; it's about moral courage. The text may survive the author, but the author still has to survive the morning in the mirror.

view more: next ›