Congratulations, you don't understand a word I said, nor do you understand any of the terms you so throw around so wantonly.

My concept of that perfect life is around the polar opposite of communism, and don't you ever call me a commie, especially when you don't know what you're talking about. The soul of my idea is the individual. If I need to explain the implications of the social structure I talked around, then I will.

There's nothing I can say to the rest of that, because at no point do you take any coherent stance other than to insult me. Arguing the meaning of life is the meaning of life? I believe you're arguing that I'm incorrect because arguing is what I'm supposed to be doing? What exactly is your point?

Explain yourself.

P.S. Communism is a classic idea of political theory that's absolutely beautiful in your head but is f**ked in practice. Plus, I don't subscribe to the belief that total equality between the people who can't fend for themselves and those who are hugely successful is something necessary or reasonable.

Yes, I take from Communism, but i'm not an out and out communist More of a hardline liberal socialist

boobs, even after much contemplation of your comment, that has to be the most jumbled, circular crock of s**t ive run across in ages....im actually suprised at it....

Doc B...

hehe dont get the wrong idea brass... i wasnt saying that a single opinion is enough to make 2 people exactly the same. thats like saying everyone with blue eyes is the same. our identities are a massive compilation of these. i was just using the communist comment as a single example. =P

and no, i wasnt sayin that i know anything about you from a forum post... but i know that your opinion is different from mine.

here, i think you said it better than i did...

the fact that you disagree with my logic is enough to prove it correct =P

my point was, in a nutshell, is that its the deeds that define us, not the opinions....anyone can say anything, anytime, EXCEPT in a communist country...its a bit simplified i know, but you get the jist yes?.... i guess thats why i took a bit of humbrage with the commie comment....lord knows, cass is anything BUT....i hate to say it, but in theory at least, there are some parts of the communist doctrine that are, mm, interesting....bewbs, ive enjoyed this...

matt, please contribute, or stay out of it....

peace...

Doc B....

redundant? their existance is created through identity. this is cause and effect - not redundancy. this is like saying a tree in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it.

oye, dont even trivialize this... it only shows your lack of understanding of the subject. this would be like me breaking down your idea that infinity also implies cycle - or even your use of the words "almost infinately".

it isnt? that's funny.. i thought differing of opinions would make 2 people identical, not individuals! our opinions on the meaning of life differ, cass. this, alone, makes us individuals.

[edit]holy crap! theres actually a /sarcasm bbcode! LOL[/edit]

First off, I would say that the modern movement of putting all-importance on personal perception means absolutely nothing to me. Calling off an argument by saying 'thats just my opinion' is to fly in the face of half of what an opinion is about: defense of the viewpoint you hold. Even in one's most dearly held beliefs, there is correct and there is incorrect. The fact that perhaps I could be the sole person in the universe to believe that also means nothing to me.

Second, no. Do not bother to waste my time and tell me I have a lack of understanding for the subject, I believe I could very well understand your notions of individuality if you told them to me.

"redundant? their existance is created through identity. this is cause and effect - not redundancy. this is like saying a tree in the forest still makes a sound if nobody is around to hear it."

Redundant it is indeed, but you barely grazed with what I was saying - and as with most of my other points, you've flown straight off the mark. I said that to stack so much importance on proving that there is individual identity is redundant, because identity is inherent.

You tripped up on your notions of perception. First you say that existence is the product of identity - well, things can and do exist which you don't know of, and thus, you can't identify. If you mean that everything that is created automatically has a self and purpose, then that would mean that nobody has to perceive something for it to be true - and by that theory, the tree does make it's sound.

Which it does.