Fuck this shit, and shitters.

Anima, animus. Body poses both. when you woke up you did you Think, i thougt i wad a man, or woman. I am a product Of my counsioucness, and my body are my temple.

To chase the idea of infinity, we must start at 0 and progress forever. All science and mathematics I'd imagine is based in line with that.

If you chase a finite result, you need a start figure to provide an answer.

Infinity assumes no end.

The finite must end.

Both the infinite and the finite exist in the minds of the living.

All life lives in the living.

We subjectly can only know the living.

The dead doesn't subjectively exist.

Life only can exist in you, the you right now reading this.

There is no other than you.

There is no you, without I.

Without the living nothing can ever exist, therefore existence is the only thing we can ever be sure is real.

>The main issue with humanity is, and always will be, tribalism. This is embedded in human psyche just as much as belief in god is. Dealing with this issues requires the art of self-contemplation...

It requires not only an individual response, but a commitment to building a society that actively educates for knowledge, tolerance, and common humanity.

I do actually, maybe not in the same way as your experience, but that’s what therapy and trauma healing are always there for. I’m so sorry to hear that your past has interfered with your ability to have fun nowadays, but surely there are still things you enjoy doing?

Games are metaphors for life, just as any other art form is. Just as a caricature is memorable because it emphasizes some features and minimizes others, games are memorable because they bring some elements of life into greater contrast and visibility.

The most obvious contrast is the game ends, while we hope our lives don't. By shortening the time frame, and compressing the 'life' into a few hours, each moment becomes more important. We celebrate the wins like a resurrection, and the losses like death. But that is obvious, and simplistic, and trite.

Consider time, and how it's marked and measured in different games. In soccer, the clock runs and the referee adds on extra time as he sees fit. In hockey and basketball, the clock stops on every stoppage of play. In football, sometimes the clock stops with the play, and sometimes it doesn't. In baseball, there isn't a clock at all,^1 nor is there one in cricket. Time is the only true non-renewable resource, so it's fascinating that our games treat it so differently.

Our games are also reflections of our societies. We saw the long struggle for integration in pro sports in the US, one whose victory preceded the one in wider society. We have seen big data overturn analytics in a number of sports, particularly baseball, as it is overturning many established patterns in life. And we have seen the corruption that we see in government copied in FIFA, in figure skating, and the IOC at the organizational level, and by the Houston Astros, the Aussie cricket team, and a bunch of PED-o baseball players at the club level. Our games are microcosms of our world, with diverse elements laid out in stark relief. We can learn a lot from studying our games, just as we learn by studying literature or poetry.

^1 - Well, it didn't. I believe a pitch clock was introduced in the minors last year, and it will make its way to the majors next year.

Honestly stoicism has always felt a little like fatalism to me. Also a major problem I have is the not desiring an outcome. It's great when you are a class of people that enjoys privilege but kinda shifty for those of a lower strata.

Nietzsche is most high level in my limited experience. I find him so difficult to follow, I find meaning I'm not confident I was meant to.

Sam Harris's short book on free will provides good food for thought. (I wouldn't flirt with any of his recent stuff, if any though.)

Jordan Petersons 12 rules for life, is a decent book for young males.

Books from Plato, Kant, Nietzsche etc, I'd suggest should be side books slowly read before bed: for everyone, especially the young.

If I had parents that showed an interest in my reading, I'd desire they provided me logical rational thinkers on observed truth, instead of metaphysical hypothetical thinkers, if you will.

First learn how to think rationally, before tangling in the abstract.

The question is: how can we determine rational thought?

I'm new to this group, so I'm yet to see the personality of responses, however in my opinion, determining rational thought isn't difficult.

If you can state your belief, don't require majority support, don't need to silence the opposition, and are happy to change your mind in light of facts, you are thinking rationally.

Wow. You must not have a mental illness bestowed upon you by your dysfunctional, abusive family that you now have to work against your entire life. Yoooooo

Good luck holdin onto anything.

All is transitory.

That said, there is a movement that encourages people to forgo happiness for obligation. There are times to do so, and there are times not to. Happiness is ultimately a gauge by which one can measure how much others have fulfilled their obligations.

When one feeds a system without reciprocation, one ultimately feeds a parasite.

The shared problem for all ontological arguments are their implicitly assumed premise.

Whether theistic or atheistic, the premise of all ideologies regarding the nature of existence, all share the assumption of a beginning. This shared assumption of a caused beginning ensures an endless regression and eternal opposition.

Attempting to rationalise the irrational can only strengthen disagreements; meaning the most irrational thing one can do, is to try find rationale in the irrational. Does it not make more sense to, build rationale out of the agreed irrationality?

I'm hyper-aware this may seem like a word-salad attempt at profundity, so I'll provide a direct example of what I mean.

Theists believe God started everything, but can never explain that which made God. We must suddenly cease further explanations.

Science provides theories of a beginning, then seeks to answer how, which seeks how, which seeks how, into infinity, which quietly admits also, there can be no satisfactory answer.

Both methods of thinking, result in irrationality from a place of seeking rationale.

If one starts from a place of irrationality this problem is avoided.

Because we assume it rational that all things have a beginning, the nature of being will never make sense.

Is it rational to assume things must begin? Is it rational to assume everything came from nothing?

How can nothing even exist unless it can be compared to something?

Instead of something coming from nothing, maybe nothing can only exist out of something.

Instead of things beginning only to end, maybe things can only end because the nature of being is to exist.

No beginning argument into infinity is required if something is the default position instead of nothing.

I hope I made sense. Much wiser folk may have already debunked or raised this concept. I hope I didn't break any posting etiquette. Merry Xmas.

[removed]

No! Games lock you into a limited perspective of possible solutions. They can only simulate previous successful strategies.

It´s almost like the willingness to "play hard" with other people in everyday situations and in more serious circumstances is exactly what makes human beings hard to criticize or invalidate.

There's always the energy of playing around other people's intentions, of countering their efforts, of figuring out and bending their rules, of crafting situations that feel novel and beautiful while inside of situations that feel restrictive and challenging.

When your own actions feel like magnificent maneuvers in a game, when your feelings feel like those of someone simply trying to enjoy a game, it's hard to be made felt like a malicious idiot.

Whoever feels like they have a childlike whimsy evolved to an adult form is a person quite difficult to change. It's why authoritative culture is the way it is, why people with power act the way they do, why common folk are hard to deal with.

It all feels like rather special forms of being human, special like all good moments in good games, and we are all convinced we know the difference between chessmaster and cheater, dungeon master and table flipper, and devote ourselves to making life interesting but not insufferable in our own contentious ways.

Oh so eager to see someone else bend their cards in agitation.

If games contain a mysterious spice of pleasure that can't be defined, then perhaps that very joy is exactly what we yet have put to put our fingers on! That elusive sense of comfort and purpose in our moments where we know others are apt to despise us. That is the core of what we have yet to define.

Signed, a person already using games a central point of his theory. Who believes this very thing we're talking about right now, that spirit of playfulness, is exactly what's allowed us to out-hunt all other species, and live so wonderfully shameless.

I believe understanding the joys of games is the key to understanding why other people feel their actions are fundamentally and essentially good no matter how vile we call them, and thereby the key to ending all arguments about why anybody does anything at all.

Is this supposed to be funny? You can do better

[deleted]

The idea of relationship under a concept of rules begs for a rulebook. Rulebook: If something makes sense, you can wonder about it. Everything is everything.

I'm glad I'm not the only one that feels that way. I straight up just posted under the (current as of writing) top post that it sounded like a Jordan Petersen level bad take by an incel with a dictionary. These comments reek of offended "men" desperate to be right.

This reads like Jordan Petersen meets basement dwelling incel with a fine veneer of having read a dictionary.

"Better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied."

This is nonsense.

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

That looks great, thank you!

Here's one from Microsoft! https://github.com/py-why/dowhy