Larian Studios Forums General Chat Chat (Anything) The Argumentative Git thread

well done jang!

all the point is there but i will take it in the other end (physical meaning)...

is immobility and move a difference of essence/nature or a difference of magnitude?... antic physics answer generally it is a difference of essence... modern physics it is a difference of magnitude (as immobility is a state among many others of move)... ok i generalize because that's not really true for pre-socratics it seems and that's only half true for Aristotle and or for Indian science for the few things i know about it. But anyway it is still a great line of the Antic and Medieval thought. And for modern physical recent theories like quantic theory or theory of Chaos have yet complexified the things.

but for contentment and happiness i will say that it is more like 2 antagonist forces. they may have the same essence but are pushing in opposite sides.

I can't give any examples about what make me truly content. I could give examples about what make me moderatly content but only because i'm not immunate against self satisfaction. About what make me truly happy many things. too many things. i think that "being healthy", "having a lot of friends" "loving my wife" "being loved by her", "having an interesting professional life" and many other things contribute to be happy/less unhappy but separatly none of these things are enough for that and maybe none are truly necessary. Or maybe they are necessary for me but not for you. anyway happiness is not in these things even if it may be coming with them. contentment is in the thing that brings contentment.

Kiya, well what you said is an aspect of what i'm trying to say yes. but it is only an aspect.

for my sources maybe that can help

Not really but I’m not sure Sartre would have opposed to a certain dualism between contentment as a perpetual state and happiness as a move. To my great shame I must confess I know little about Sartre’s works...

no but the social and political aspects I was referring to is mainly against the words of a very minor French "philosopher" and professor in political and moral philosophy named Claude Polin (author of a book about or more precisely against democracy). This man preached a return to a very conservative (lest I can say) order based on Greek values. I was always shocked by his view and by his refute of considering evolutions of physics view in the thought about politics and moral question (and happiness is mainly a moral question)


I really can’t. Well I think I used contentment in a way that is more or less corresponding to the translation (“tradutore trattitore” like said Italians but…) of Greek concepts in English as they appears in many modern analysis of Greek philosophy (and especially Stoicism and Epicurism… true for Cynics too I think) where moral view is a logical consequence to physical view
So, in a way, in a restrictive meaning but that was provoked by koz’s post…
Hmm maybe I’m referring to Nietzsche and phenomenology too. I’ve been always fascinated by the idea Thought can be only revealed in a fragmental way because I think it goes well with the splitting of our modern view of physics and knowledge in general…

Hope that helps.

ok i'm sorry i didn't wish to speak in an enigmatic way. just to integrate a parralel between evolutive views of physical and moral worlds.