The philosophy thread (no extremist manifesto debates please)


Sometimes I wonder if it was always like that or not. I mean, of course I think we always wanted something like the most adequate means for whatever need we have, but all the “generally-wanting-even-more” might have started with agriculture and the ability to hoard a whole shitload of grain and stuff… at some point people began to think, “well, why only have enough for the winter, more is always better, no”, so it started to develop into the close-to-ultimate basic human ideology?


Actually no…I’ve attempted to write a few different things in here and I digress…not today Satan.


So is it actually about the performance, or just chest-thumping bragging rights?

It’s about status, isn’t it? Having a shinier toy than someone else. But sadly there’s always a shinier toy somewhere else, if not now then soon, so no one wins that game.


Indeed no one does. To me, I think it’s a beautiful, luxurious car that also performs beyond any reasonable needs.

For a car that I would actually drive hard, I’d probably pick up something late model and modify it for track use. C5 corvettes, Mazda Miatas, older Mini Coopers would all be options. I hope to build a Pike’s Peak car sometime next decade and will probably choose a known, documented, base to modify to my needs.


hmm i think the point of Bugatti,mercedes,BMW,porche,ferrari if you are not a race car driver.then it is most likely status symbol!for the super wealthy,it is never enough.they have a Superior inferiority complex.
they know deep down they are greedy needy shitbags profiting off regular peoples suffering.
so they have to show off and claim success.none of these cars would be practical for me.
you really cant drive them for what they are.too wide too low blind spots galore.
i will take a gti or bmw one m,ford focus honda can drive them like a mad man!


I’d argue it started with exploration. The first time we walked over a hill, thought about all the land we could see could give us, and then we decided to walk over the next hill anyways. That day we decided to have more.


I think there’s an assumption here that everyone is that way. The reality is that only a small fraction of people are the pioneer sorts who boldly go where no one has gone before, while most of the rest of us mind the home front and wish them well. The pioneers usually don’t come back.


So true!i am of that type.i have explored the limits of my own capabilities.
quite a bit before i was 21.its been one hall of a journey for me!
i have a short dunno poem or something that puts things in perspective.
can’t find it at the moment.i
but i have fallen short at times,i have boldly overstepped my abilities and paid the price.
however i have learned much,and have become wiser,and truly look at the world not with jaded perception,
but of wonder.whats next?


This reminded me of these lines from Machiavelli:

“…nature has created men in such a way that they can desire everything but are unable to attain everything, so that their desire is always greater than their power of acquisition, and discontent with what they possess and a lack of satisfaction are the result.”

(Discourses on Livy, Book I.37.)


Yeah, interesting point, maybe - but I would think that in prehistory, that was often due to basic needs, changing environments, natural pattenrs, getting away from danger and so on. Also, the hoarding of moar, moar, moar of the same seems to be different to me from the idea of finding something new, better, less dangerous and so on, which cold motivate exploration imho.


Same sentiments of never enough/moar… can also be used for personal excellence…but the dark side is constant goal post shifting…but most of the self help stuff out there is a bs scam designed to get people to forfeit their money…but practicing personal excellence like fitness goals…or learning a new skill…etc…can help…so…to each their own


Yeah, but I would argue that personal excellence is rarely about moar moar moar of the same - finetuning existing skills is surely one aspect of it and might go into that direciton a bit, but in general, I would say it is often more about developing new skills, integrating and synthesizing different areas of knowledge or aspects of reality, different viewpoints and so on… So I would say the similarity is stronger for the exploration aspect WN refered to than the hoarding/accumulation aspect I was on about.


For some but not a full counter-argument, see Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew. Largely his take is that there was quite a lot of variation in Judaism as Jesus would have grown up in. I remember thinking in reading it, pre-printing press, or mass distribution ever thereof, orthodoxy of any type was just practically hard.


This is true, and why I wrote what I wrote about Matthew. This is not a text which would find sympathy with Judaism in Judea, especially in calling on the authority of Zoroastrian priests (magi) for validation of divinity.

That might be possible in a sect in Egypt which once centered around the restorationist Judaism of Onius the IV, but it wouldn’t be true of Judaism in Judea; regardless of the variation. Samaria had more tolerant leanings, and an argument might be made for this provenance due to the Samaritan tradition of the same religion (since Samaritans are descendants of the Kingdom of Israel) having more tolerance toward non-Judaic inclusions, but there is so far no indication that I’m aware of that Samaritans found greater value in Zoroastrian priests than their own priests. The most that can be said is that they would be less likely to spit on the ground at the idea than their southern relatives.



I don’t know where else to post this - but I’ve come back to it over the years and it’s a really fascinating delve.

Even though all of this is probably inaccurate, and pure speculation - that’s what makes it a curious breakdown.