You may be able to save people from hell but you can't save hell from people.
:mittens:
That works, well said. :mittens:
Thanks, I think I should have put it in TFY,S though.
According to an oft misunderstood quote from Sartre, "hell is other people" (l'enfer, c'est les autres).
Can you save yourself from other people? Do you want to?
I'm not sure I understand what it means :oops:
Quote from: Cramulus on May 25, 2010, 04:14:08 PM
I'm not sure I understand what it means :oops:
Who is the machine?
Who is trying to destroy the earth?
People.
Once people are added to the mix the batter is corrupted. I am not saying this isn't the way it's supposed to be, just the way it is.
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:11:24 PM
According to an oft misunderstood quote from Sartre, "hell is other people" (l'enfer, c'est les autres).
Can you save yourself from other people? Do you want to?
First I would have to accept Sartres definition of hell.
For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".
Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).
ETA: apologies if the explanation was not solicited, I couldn't tell. And I've been working on phenomenology for like 7 hours straight now, it's leaking out of my brain.
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:23:29 PM
For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".
Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).
So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.
Quote from: Hawk on May 25, 2010, 04:29:36 PM
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:23:29 PM
For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".
Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).
So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.
Would "People cannot be prevented from choosing hell over non-hell." be an appropriate rephrasal?
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:33:53 PM
Quote from: Hawk on May 25, 2010, 04:29:36 PM
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:23:29 PM
For him it didn't mean that they themselves were hell, but that the self-view/judgment that one undertakes, when incorporating the judgments (either perceived or real) from other people, is hell. But it doesn't mean that you should avoid other people, it just underlines the fact that the negativity felt when the judgment (again, either perceived or real) of someone else enters into your own judgement, which would be otherwise less "harsh".
Sartre was a atheist based on his doctrine of the absolute liberty of man, which for him forcibly denied the existence of a god, so the traditional "fire and brimstone" hell for him is just silly(as it is for many).
So let's follow the notion that hell is the place where all of our guilt is stored. If we can come to terms with our mistakes during our lives and work to correct them and improve ourselves then we have nothing invested in hell. Our guilt is removed. However if we instead choose to wallow in our guilt and hold it in and do nothing to correct it then we are contributing to the mass that creates hell. Thereby hell cannot be saved from people.
Would "People cannot be prevented from choosing hell over non-hell." be an appropriate rephrasal?
Possibly, but would it be as thought provoking?
It wouldn't be as attention-grabbing for sure, but I was just asking as a clarification, as your original sentence wasn't directly in clear relation with the meaning you explained. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.
Quote from: NWC on May 25, 2010, 04:39:29 PM
It wouldn't be as attention-grabbing for sure, but I was just asking as a clarification, as your original sentence wasn't directly in clear relation with the meaning you explained. That's not necessarily a bad thing though.
As a metaphor it could cover a lot of things. It could also have as many different meanings as how many people read it.
Call me a jumped up chat-bot but I saw "hell" and "people" and couldn't help but be reminded of Sartre.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 25, 2010, 07:25:39 PM
Call me a jumped up chat-bot but I saw "hell" and "people" and couldn't help but be reminded of Sartre.
See my first 2 posts in this thread.
God I'm dumb, sorry. Nevermind.
Quote from: Sigmatic on May 25, 2010, 08:43:04 PM
God I'm dumb, sorry. Nevermind.
Your input is still valid.
I can't help the way my mind works.
Let's look at the christian heaven for a moment.
The supposed draw is one gets to live forever doing nothing but singing praises to and about their god. They are to spend every moment worshiping him. It's all about one guy. Period.
Sounds like hell to me.
To me there is a balance between the heavens and hells of the "eastern" and "western" religions.
Looking at Buddhism, for instance, "heaven" (nirvana) is actually a removal from the complexities and sufferings of life. It is an empty spaceless void. On the other hand, Christian heaven is an embrace of the complexities and sufferings of life. I know this because by definition heaven is supposedly "being in the presence of God". God, being a summation of the entire universe, would actually be a representation of all the order/chaos in the world, all its good and all its bad. Heaven by my definition would actually be like being in the presence of both God and Devil, since they are one and the same.
Likewise, being in the presence of life is hell to Buddhists. Some people, like Buddha, chose to remain in hellish life in order to teach those how to leave it for the void. And, likewise, being in the void means NOT being-with-god, making it hell to Christians.
Edit: also another thing I was thinking about. You can think of heaven and hell in terms of increasing or decreasing dimensional activity. One being a simplifying shift down from 3D down to 2D, then to 1D, then 0D if there is such a thing. The other being a complicating shift from 3D to 4D to 5D and so on.
Quote from: memy on May 26, 2010, 05:58:17 PM
To me there is a balance between the heavens and hells of the "eastern" and "western" religions.
Looking at Buddhism, for instance, "heaven" (nirvana) is actually a removal from the complexities and sufferings of life. It is an empty spaceless void. On the other hand, Christian heaven is an embrace of the complexities and sufferings of life. I know this because by definition heaven is supposedly "being in the presence of God". God, being a summation of the entire universe, would actually be a representation of all the order/chaos in the world, all its good and all its bad. Heaven by my definition would actually be like being in the presence of both God and Devil, since they are one and the same.
Likewise, being in the presence of life is hell to Buddhists. Some people, like Buddha, chose to remain in hellish life in order to teach those how to leave it for the void. And, likewise, being in the void means NOT being-with-god, making it hell to Christians.
Edit: also another thing I was thinking about. You can think of heaven and hell in terms of increasing or decreasing dimensional activity. One being a simplifying shift down from 3D down to 2D, then to 1D, then 0D if there is such a thing. The other being a complicating shift from 3D to 4D to 5D and so on.
They both sound boring as hell and I want no part of either of them.
Hell is only any use if there's shotguns and plenty of powerups lying around and a whole host of increasingly gross and difficult to kill monsters. If it's not like that then I'm taking my business elsewhere.
Heaven? Yeah right, we all dress in white and sing kumbaya all day? Watch me!
Heaven for me would be like living in this world, only I can fly and explode things with my mind. Also hallucinogens are legal and entirely safe to use. And everyone wants my body, but please just one at a time ladies
edit: men feel free to come at me in groups though
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 26, 2010, 06:57:03 PM
Hell or heaven is only any use if there's shotguns and plenty of powerups lying around and a whole host of increasingly gross and difficult to kill monsters. If it's not like that then I'm taking my business elsewhere.
Quote from: memy on May 26, 2010, 07:09:04 PM
Heaven for me would be like living in this world, only I can fly and explode things with my mind. Also hallucinogens are legal and entirely safe to use. And everyone wants my body, but please just one at a time ladies
edit: men feel free to come at me in groups though
Jesus fuck, you weren't kidding about that being-married thing were ya?
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 26, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
[Jesus fuck, you weren't kidding about that being-married thing were ya?
Nope. But in the end relationships are messy; it doesn't matter to me how they come. Then again, messy is good, isn't it? I can honestly say I love all the fighting and self-hatred. It keeps me on my toes.
Meh, I did a five-stretch myself but in the end getting laid regularly won out over the joy of constant fighting :lulz:
My first marriage of 25 years was horrible. The second on at 10 and counting is excellent.
Quote from: memy on May 26, 2010, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 26, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
[Jesus fuck, you weren't kidding about that being-married thing were ya?
Nope. But in the end relationships are messy; it doesn't matter to me how they come. Then again, messy is good, isn't it? I can honestly say I love all the fighting and self-hatred. It keeps me on my toes.
:lmnuendo:
OH AND
Quote from: memy on May 26, 2010, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 26, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
[Jesus fuck, you weren't kidding about that being-married thing were ya?
Nope. But in the end relationships are messy; it doesn't matter to me how they come. Then again, messy is good, isn't it? I can honestly say I love all the fighting and self-hatred. It keeps me on my toes.
:lmnuendo:
Quote from: Hawk on May 26, 2010, 07:33:46 PM
My first marriage of 25 years was horrible. The second on at 10 and counting is excellent.
I've been with current gf for about 11 years now. That's twice as long as I was with ex wife. There's talk of marriage. I'm fast running out of excuses.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on May 26, 2010, 07:38:15 PM
OH AND
Quote from: memy on May 26, 2010, 07:21:43 PM
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on May 26, 2010, 07:15:26 PM
[Jesus fuck, you weren't kidding about that being-married thing were ya?
Nope. But in the end relationships are messy; it doesn't matter to me how they come. Then again, messy is good, isn't it? I can honestly say I love all the fighting and self-hatred. It keeps me on my toes.
:lmnuendo:
:spittake:
Oh you found it!
I plan to never get married again.
Or, if I do, it will be after dating for a really long time; maybe ten years or so.
Fuck getting married, I'm just now at the age of 26 figuring out what I need in order to keep a relationship going longer than three months.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on May 27, 2010, 02:42:02 AM
Fuck getting married, I'm just now at the age of 26 figuring out what I need in order to keep a relationship going longer than three months.
I have a knack with that. I think my shortest relationship ever was with Mario, and that lasted 7 months, that time (and I am pretty sure there will be another, longer round with that guy). I think the deal is that usually in the beginning I only see them every other week or so, and very gradually ramp up to weekly and then twice a week dates. Then usually I get a house with them, get married, and have babies, but I'm trying not to do that anymore.
I exited my last relationship so burnt out, I am STILL hovering between apprehension and disgust at the thought of dating again.
First step: get laid. THEN think about dating.
What Badge said.
Me and Payne been together 5 months now. 5 months today in fact.
I wish we had WOMP tubes tho.
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on May 27, 2010, 08:30:41 AM
First step: get laid. THEN think about dating.
good advice. :D
Quote from: Rainy Day Pixie on May 27, 2010, 12:22:46 PM
Me and Payne been together 5 months now. 5 months today in fact.
I wish we had WOMP tubes tho.
Congrats!
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on May 27, 2010, 02:42:02 AM
Fuck getting married, I'm just now at the age of 26 figuring out what I need in order to keep a relationship going longer than three months.
I agree. And I've kept the same relationship (more or less) for 13 years. Still no talk of marriage. Which may just be the answer!
Quote from: BADGE OF HONOR on May 27, 2010, 08:30:41 AM
First step: get laid. THEN think about dating.
:lulz: I think I'll try it out for once...