Popular Scans

Browse Scans

Browse Scans


  1. myri-chan 12h 19m ago


  2. myri-chan 1d 13h ago


  3. myri-chan 2d 12h ago


  4. TheCompiler 5d 7h ago

    Quote by myri-chan Don't worry we'll have many other opportunties in the future to discuss about interesting stuff ;p

    philosophy of power? oh dear,sounds pretty evil Lol..i prefer Robin hoods like MR.Chomsky but thanks again for the discovery i'll check this guy in my free time.

    well I think the proper name is politics, but it has so many connotations that it just sends the wrong message
    But yeah, do watch it if you get time, he's like, opens a new world to you

  5. TheCompiler 6d 4h ago

    And I'm not a conservative guy. I would say I'm a liberal. But I just love to find faults in everything (learning programming does that to you I guess).
    And so, I don't think that our conversation will go in circles, at least I'll strive to not let it be so (told ya, relentless)

    But there's a second thing, I do sense you're hinting at bringing this conversation to a closure. So I'll stop now, sorry for the trouble, it's just so rare that anyone discusses philosophy or politics online that I just jump at the opportunity ^^;
    But so as to end it somewhat gracefully, I'll transition into the side subject lead you provided-
    Yeah it's amazing to get to know how different people think isn't it, your world becomes bigger

    On and you'll love Foucault if you like philosophy of power.

  6. TheCompiler 6d 6h ago

    Ah religion is just too vague and too big. I've watched at least a dozen episodes of House and I didn't know his name is Gregory. I was just like, yeah Dr house, that's his name.
    Anyway coming back to religion (and just stop me if I'm being offensive) it's a bit outdated isn't it? After all it's just a bunch of thoughts of people who existed once. It's getting more and more difficult to find any use of them.

    Don't make me Google, you underestimate my laziness

    You're right I totally disagree :p
    I find the typical Indian way of thinking too hasty and in that sense, it's similar to social sciences.
    I'm more fond a mathematical way of thinking. Very deliberate, gradual and cautious. And in that sense you're right, it's less practical and more beautiful.
    But then I find practicality to be something that's decided powers that be, something which I strive to reject when it comes to personal thoughts, because in the real world you have no option but to obey them. But personal values of morality, chivalry, righteousness, these are beyond practicality I feel- driveable by internal power rather than external- isn't that more liberating than following routes created by external powers?

    Have you ever heard about Foucault?
    if not you might like this video-
    And it might feel like a conversation because I feel you're more on the Chomsky side
    (Chomsky is also so awesome though)

    And let me know if you want to pause if not stop this conversation, because believe me, I'm relentless, and I realise that I am. So I won't mind. I'm giving you a fair warning :p

  7. TheCompiler 6d 8h ago

    I'm exact opposite to you in that respect :p
    Scientific way and experience can be manipulated by the powerful, mainly, the culture in which you grow up. But if you have to question your own culture and upbringing (and of course you have to question it if you want to justify it objectively to someone not of the same background, which is most of the people in the world) then you have to rely only on your internal reasoning or intuition, mistrusting even them while doing so.
    The problem with experiences is restrictions and inaccessibility of those experiences (like money, laws, culture, social norms, etc). But if you rely more on abstract philosophy, you become free of such problems. I have personally found many more practical answers in philosophy than experience.

    Haven't heard of Kropotkin before, who's that?

    Anyway, it's difficult to tell isn't it? The West won, even psychologically over others. The rest of the world has forgotten their own history. I really don't know much about my country either, they didn't teach history well enough in our schools, more focus on on practical subjects like maths, English, etc.

    See you're giving examples based on correlation again, which is certainly a considerably reliable place to search for causation, but certainly isn't causation in itself. This is what I don't like about the scientific approach. It stresses much more on statistics and observations and less on reasoning. A good thing is that it manages to find so overwhelmingly many observations that reasoning in most cases requires very less efforts.
    But this is not the case with social sciences- economics, psychology, history, etc. We all know that the developed countries are more liberal than developing countries today. But is that correlation really a sufficient enough reason to enforce liberalism on developing countries? Like I said in my earlier PM, it could be possible that liberalism is a feature of stability and not a prerequisite. To which you pointed out that 'but liberalism was also there in like Renaissance which followed dark ages' and I really don't have enough knowledge of history to talk about which came first, progress or humanism.
    But what I can discuss is, can you think of any hypothetical manner in which humanism brought about upliftment? Because I can think of such a manner which can tell how liberal thoughts can be born in stability, and thus, also how it's difficult to nurture them in weakness.

    But this will be an abstract discussion supported by statistics and facts if you like, but carried only by abstract reasoning. But I'm not sure if you'd like it.. I mean, everyone with whom I talk like that gets bored (ask monu). So what do you say? Because frankly I'm quite enjoying this conversation

  8. TheCompiler 1wk 0d ago

    Quote by myri-chan the ideal would be combining both conservative and liberal ideologies, for example kemalism is a good example of center left concept.
    misandry or female supremacism is a myth,there are some matriarchal societies over the world but those are obselete primitive models,all women even misandrists are looking for is just respect and equal opportunities that's all. believe it or not what makes the first world so superior it's not for it's conservative politics but the liberal ideology,just look at almost all third world poor countries,they have all in common excessive traditionalism.
    the statistics show that the world's highest levels of happiness are located in scandinavia wich have social democratic systems..of course third world countries are not ready for that type of government but as i said before doctrines like kemalism which one can qualify as authoritarian form of liberalism is more adapted for countries which have high levels of

    oh I haven't ever heard of kemalism. I've read the Wikipedia page now and yeah it does seem like a combination of both, statist and populist.
    Existence of misandry might be a myth, for I too haven't seen anyone really hate men in particular (but then I haven't really seen any misogynist either.. I really don't meet people much in general so..) but if it were to exist, liberalism would have been fine with it.

    I wouldn't be so hasty in reaching to that conclusion. It might be that first world countries are rich because of some other reasons(colonialism etc) and have gained happiness and stability . And it is because of this stability that they have moved up in Maslow's pyramid of needs and can 'afford' to think and act liberally. They're not happy because they're liberal. They're liberal because they're happy.
    Now this too would be an equally hasty judgement.
    Because I don't really know whether liberalism would be bad for under developed countries or not. I don't even know how to think about it.

    I think it should be reasonable to say- power is more evenly spread out in liberalism than conservatism. An ideal world would be where anyone is able to do anything they want to. However it's not even logically possible because when two people want opposite things. Conflict is unavoidable. The powerful will get more. The weak will get less. This cannot be changed. But the powerful might not want all power they have. Only in that case is liberalism or conservatism possible. How to transfer power from strong to weak. It can be sudden like a class overthrowing the other. Or gradual like most of the capitalist republic nations are doing.
    I made a thread elsewhere a week ago about this but didn't get much response. Idk you might wanna have a look?

  9. TheCompiler 1wk 0d ago

    Quote by myri-chan Well, conservatism relies essentially on religious concepts.. All religions without almost any exception.But not only that, consevative ideology is also based on social Darwinism which means only the strongest or fortunate deserves to be respected, it lacks that notion of fairness and understanding like giving a chance to unfortunate members of a society which is typically Progressive.

    (Posting in gb because this is off topic)
    What do you mean by conservatism?
    It's it essentially just: maintaining the existing power structures because any new ventures are risky.
    And liberalism is challenging and constantly changing power structures and being ready to pay the costs of risk.

    While liberalism is necessary for change and betterment. Conservatism is necessary for stability and survival. And depending on the situation either one of them is proportionately in power.

    So conservatism might prefer patriarchy, just like religions because that's how things have been. But I don't think misogyny, hatred/degradation for women, any pre existing power structure.

    So, to answer the question I had posed earlier, conservatism might be the only place which could harbour misogynists because they are not likely to go against patriarchy.
    On the other side, liberalism will be the only safe haven for misandry because misandry opposes the existing power structure of patriarchy.

    Neither of them are good for humanity. But they are tools, just like axe and gun which can be used in some circumstances, not altogether justifiably of course, but also not altogether unreasonably.

    And doesn't liberalism lack the motion of fairness too? It is essentially biased against existing power structures, those who benefit now will suffer in the system which liberalism strives for

  10. Blue-Crescent 2wk 2d ago

    Hello dearest sister.

    I have sent you a PM. Please see it.
    Daisuki! <3

    BLUE ^^

  11. Masterchief80 3wk 6d ago

    Hi Myri
    It's been a long time since we wrote to each other. How are you doing now ?

  12. myri-chan 4wk 2d ago

    Who's the AntiChrist again?


This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Read more.