My boyfriend of 6 years and I broke up. How's your day going Yea Forums?

Great I finally got rid of the annoying cuntbag girlfriend of 6 years

"Morals"
Claims Yea Forums is the only place that made her happy.

Seriously dude. Something doesnt add up.

Go Larping elsewhere or if for real return the happiness you claim we provide.

Attached: Jack-is-love-jack-is-life-jack-is-fresh.jpg (700x1888, 248K)

Attached: 1535930184391.jpg (651x768, 96K)

Isn't 6 years a little too young to date people ?

>uses quotes instead of greentext
Your newfag is showing

His newfag is showing. This entire thread is invasion of the newfags. You know the rules cunt, tits or gtfo, then maybe way down the line consoling, but not until there is a sharpie firmly planted in your anus.

I don't know if I want to date anyone at all after this point. He was perfect... until he changed. He ticked all my boxes and I feel like I'll never be able to get over it. I'm really not looking for flings. Just wanted someone to spend my life with. Especially after all we've been through

>Why did you two break up?
We broke up because he started becoming very manipulative, building up slowly over time. He became possessive over everything I did. He found all my passwords so he could stalk every single account on anywhere I used, he spent a few days reading my full search history, and chatlog history. He ratted my computer and I had no idea so he was also listening in to conversations I was having. He was just paranoid about the possibility of me cheating... even though I never did. He never allowed me to look through his stuff though and hid things from me. One of the final straws was when he said he doesn't want to marry or have children with me even though this was something we wanted for years. He was only using me for sex in the past year and purposefully poked a hole in a condom he used on me so I would get pregnant without him noticing.
>Who was the one to do it?
I was the one to do it because I knew that if he had this deeply rooted paranoia about me the whole time, even if we did get back together he'd never trust me and he'd probably end up doing something else crazy. Not long ago he burst into my flat, drunk, after pretending he was being arrested by police right outside. I sprinted out so I could do something after which he was just smoking a cigarette, by himself, and he was shoving me into my flat without saying anything. He ordered me to open the door and let him in, and step away from the computer. He shouted at me and wouldn't let me ask any questions about what he was doing

cont.

cont.

He just put some memory stick into my computer so he could get my chat logs or something straight from the source. He found nothing, I was doing none of the things he expected me to be doing
>Do you still talk?
No, we haven't said anything to each other since. My last message was "I hope you sleep well user, I don't think I'm going to sleep tonight though"

My opinion of him was always positive, I just overlooked the red flags. I feel like I have lost everything we've been through. How long does this damn feeling last?

I'm a biological woman

Nice try but he doesn't browse Yea Forums

I only came here for the drawthreads, anime and actual discussions not the cancer, doxxing, porn etc.

I'm not suicidal

Haha, pretty funny. We started dating when I was 13 and he was 15

That's not me

Kek.

I can assure you I've been here longer than you kiddo. Not that I have anything to prove so flame on little man. Flame on.

The only things I can recommend at this point are staying comfortable and taking time off school/work if that suits you. Other than that, walks outside helped me a lot .

>staying comfortable
I'll try this, I'm just trying to do my daily tasks
>taking time off school/work if that suits you
I don't think I can. I mean, I'm a full time University student. Which, by the way, we go to the same University together because I moved here for him. I could've gotten into any University I wanted but I came here to a sub-par one just so we could be close after 5 years of being together and trusting him
>walks outside helped me a lot
I'll try this. The only downside is I live in the city but I'll still go out and think I suppose

Oh, and and after reading your last post. Give it a few months and try and get out of there. Try and move near a family member or friend. You probably don't want him to be the only person you know around you.

>Which, by the way, we go to the same University together because I moved here for him. I could've gotten into any University I wanted but I came here to a sub-par one just so we could be close

Ouch... Chalk this one up to an extreme learning experience and move on. There's nothing to do now but keep going. Dwelling on it is not going to help you. Could be worse.

Attached: 1553337275309.jpg (1200x859, 178K)

So go cry in a draw thread. What you are doing here is exactly the kind of thing that Tits or gtfo was started for.

You are abusing the fact that you are femanon for more reactions. More replies. More whiteknight fags lining up to please you.

The least you could do is respect where you are and pay your tribute to the ways of this place.

Its sad that there are so many ppl disregarding all Yea Forums use to be these days.

This man knows the rules

Tits or gtfo bitch. Boo fuckin hoo.

Big sad

OP aren't you the same user who posted here yesterday saying your boyfriend changed and didn't want to have kids anymore and that he had been showing MGTOW tendencies, and also that he started faping to traps? The ages you said in also match up with yesterday's thread

I'm just going to move when I finished studying but thanks for the advice

It could be. I'm glad things broke off "early"

No, I was stating I was a woman so people like didn't think I was a fag

Yep. Yep, exactly. This is just how things ended

>Nice try but he doesn't browse Yea Forums
did you believe me cunt? You are a ugly cunt physically and emotionally

Mine's going poorly. Once again i lack the motivation to invest myself in the work that the hopes and objectives i've set up for myself are requiring. How are people motivated anyway ? it's like i live in a constant state of torpor.

Lol, he doesn't type like that either. Give me a name or initial and I may believe you

I feel the same way. I guess the only thing that keeps me motivated is just keeping your head up and thinking about the future you want to build

Attached: 1MFVYNr.jpg (1000x736, 129K)

>Lol, he doesn't type like that either. Give me a name or initial and I may believe you
You first

Ignore the faggots saying tits or gtfo. It’s meant for people flaunting that they’re a woman for attention which isn’t what you’re doing

Mine? P

Tits or gtfo.

youtube.com/watch?v=8-JZhsEbj5c

Ok, that sucks. Let's be honest, a woman doesn't have a problem getting dick. She would have to be seriously fubar to not have guys offering her dick every day. So for me, it's hard to have feels for a bitch that broke up with bf. You'll get over it in a min and then filling your pussy with strange cock. Nothing better then a rebound bitch.

What do i even want to buil ? i don't know. I just want a good job, because if money does not buy happyness, being in need surely creates it.

So i should work hard, get that sweet engineering course in mecanical genius next year, get into naval architecture, buil boats, eventually build my own and gtfo. I think that's what i want. But that's a vague picture. And even if i think i want it very hard, i don't have the minimal amount of willpower to go to my desk and do mathematics if we have a specialist in decomposition in product of irreductible polynoms, hmu)

>It could be. I'm glad things broke off "early"

At least you don't have a kid in the mix and a marriage. I wish I was in your situation, but I wouldn't trade the one I'm in. Had all my tools nicked and I've lost work as a result. Paid off the lads but now I think I'm out of the running unless I can drum up 5k.

Ups and downs and all arounds. Keep going, keep smiling, doing anything else isn't allowed.

You may be depressed, but still u are a teenager in best years in college.
Still have plenty of times to get over with it.

Also u should be happy to have find out now, before something extreme

White knight much?

TITS OR GTFO

You're what, like 19? user you don't know shit. You don't even have the perspective to know how much shit you don't know. Consider this a blessing in disguise, you two were never going to get married and have kids. He "changed" because he's a guy and he's at uni and he wants to fuck as many women as possible. Move. On. You will be an entirely different person at 29, and at 39, etc. When you get older and really begin to know yourself you can start looking for a serious relationship, until then you are just navigating life and getting your bearings. And dating and fucking.

Source: I'm an old fag of 39 winters.

You know the drill slut, tits or GTFO.

>My opinion of him was always positive, I just overlooked the red flags. I feel like I have lost everything we've been through. How long does this damn feeling last?

Been a year and a half of no contact with my ex. We were each other's everything but it just didn't work.

People come and go but if that was the one then there's fuck all you can do about it, just get through each day and they'll start to be better than the ones that preceeded it.

Hello fren, tell us, which sex offenders register are you currently signing ?.
>Pic related ?

Attached: cage.jpg (267x189, 12K)

come to my house, let's talk and binge something

>Let's be honest, a woman doesn't have a problem getting dick.
That is never something I cared for in life. I'm religious. I don't feel like I need to depend on any man because I come from a poor background where I've just had to depend on myself
> You'll get over it in a min
I don't think I want to date anyone else
>and then filling your pussy with strange cock.
I lost my virginity to him, I've never had any sexual experiences with anyone else. I stayed with him 6 years until it sadly came to an end. If I stayed with him he would continue using me as an emotion punching bag

>At least you don't have a kid in the mix and a marriage
Yes, I can only imagine how things would've gone down then
>Keep going, keep smiling, doing anything else isn't allowed.
Thank you, I'll try

>but still u are a teenager in best years in college
That's true, I have a life ahead of me still. It's not the end. But I wonder if I'll ever find someone for me now

Again, I may be single but I have morals

>you two were never going to get married and have kids
Actually this is something we always talked about very vividly and made long term plans in our head
>He "changed" because he's a guy and he's at uni and he wants to fuck as many women as possible
Somehow I don't feel like that's what he's doing
> until then you are just navigating life and getting your bearings. And dating and fucking.
I don't want to 'date and fuck'. I always wanted to marry and settle down with someone I love

How long did it take you to finally stop feeling so upset over it? Did you ever?

I'm living in the UK, you?

Is it too late to switch unis or what

tits or get the fuck out

tits or GTFO

no tits? get the fuck out

hey no tits? get the fuck out

No tits? yeah you gotta get the fuck out

Attached: No_girls_on_the_internet.png (1254x342, 63K)

>>Let's be honest, a woman doesn't have a problem getting dick.
That is never something I cared for in life. I'm religious. I don't feel like I need to depend on any man because I come from a poor background where I've just had to depend on myself
> You'll get over it in a min
I don't think I want to date anyone else
>and then filling your pussy with strange cock.
I lost my virginity to him, I've never had any sexual experiences with anyone else. I stayed with him 6 years until it sadly came to an end. If I stayed with him he would continue using me as an emotion punching bag

Blah blah, it's strangely always the guys fault. Women are never wrong nor do anything wrong. Do what you were born to do OP, spread your legs and take dick. Thread/

If there's an user binge planned in the UK within 2h drive range i'm in

Did your mom sleep with the milkman or something?

Attached: 1553045082194.jpg (270x256, 15K)

I'm 1/6 way through my course. It might be

>

I recognise what I did wrong, he didn't recognise him doing anything wrong. There was no compromise, just straight up paranoia

Honestly, me too

Attached: middle finger.png (825x852, 1.01M)

Honestly from what you described it sounds like any kindness he showed was a lure so he could have you. he doesn't deserve your tears I know saying this shits not gonna work cause you know it too but really you only knew him when you were in too deep to turn away.

Got tits? show them or get out

where the tits at?

This thread is fucking cancer and low energy LARPing.
>Time to abort this retardation.
Unless someone want to shit up this thread with gore ? ... Anyone ?

Attached: pull-my-finger.jpg (269x187, 34K)

Tits or gtfo

Where are you located ?

this

Freshman year I got together with my girlfriend. Loved her madly, we spent so much time together. We lived together for 4 and a half years, we were together for 7 years almost.

She slept with my sisters best boyfriend who was my best friend, he was like a brother to me for over 10 years. Those were the only two people I trusted. My parents were not the best growing up, I was very poor.

I was admitted into the hospital WRC (wellness and recovery center) after i hurt myself very. Long story short, 116 stitches and 5 staples later I’m alive and doing so much better than I ever had. It was hard, and looking back now I was so weak. So weak. The memory still haunts me.

I can assure you user you will get through this. I am now in a different relationship and almost a year in. It’s difficult, I’m way more insecure but besides that everything is great.

The best advice I can give you, is to move on. Honestly the best thing for me was talking to someone else. We met up and kissed a little bit, shared feelings and next thing you know I completely forgot that awful person existed. Do what you will with this information.

Good luck.

Attached: C9422F58-5ED8-4ED9-A837-61FDE1AB244C.jpg (612x612, 104K)

The StG 44 (abbreviation of Sturmgewehr 44, "assault rifle 44") is a German selective-fire rifle developed during World War II. It is also known as the MP 43 and MP 44 (Maschinenpistole 43 and 44).

The StG 44 was the first successful assault rifle, with features including a relatively short cartridge, controllable automatic fire, a more compact design than a battle rifle with a quicker rate of fire, and intended for hitting targets within a few hundred metres.[5]

The StG 44 fulfilled its role effectively, particularly on the Eastern Front, offering a greatly increased volume of fire compared to standard infantry rifles. It came too late to have much effect on the war, but did influence the Russian AK-47 that was introduced two years after the war concluded.[5] [6] Its influence can still be seen in modern assault rifles.[5]

tsk, too far
I would have to be an immigrant, but I have a kid here

In a somewhat unrelated development, Mauser continued design work on a series of experimental weapons in an effort to produce an acceptable service-wide rifle for the short cartridge system. One of these prototypes, a product of the engineers at the Light Weapon Development Group (Abteilung 37) at Oberndorf, was the MKb Gerät 06 (Maschinenkarabiner Gerät 06 or "machine carbine device 06") first appearing in 1942. This gun used a unique gas piston-delayed roller-locked action derived from the short recoil operation of the MG 42 machine gun but with a fixed barrel and gas system. It was realized that with careful attention to the mechanical ratios, the gas system could be omitted. The resultant weapon, the Gerät 06(H), was supposedly slated for adoption by the Wehrmacht as the StG 45(M). The operating principle lived on in postwar designs from CEAM/AME, CETME, and most famously, Heckler & Koch.

Towards the end of the war, there were last-ditch efforts to develop cheap so-called Volksgewehr rifles in the 7.92×33mm[3] caliber. One of these, the VG 1-5 (Volkssturmgewehr 1-5), used a gas-delayed blowback action based on the Barnitzke system, whereby gas bled from the barrel near the chamber created resistance to the rearward impulse of the operating parts, which ceases when the projectile leaves the muzzle, allowing the operating parts to be forced rearward by the residual pressure of the cartridge case. This principle has been used most successfully in the P7 pistol.

A 2008 U.S. Department of Energy study revealed that daylight saving time cuts down on energy use annually by only about 0.03%. And if you've heard that we do it for farmers, you've bought into a myth created by the Chamber of Commerce, who promised that changing your clocks meant that farmers wouldn't be stuck with apples "picked before the sun had the chance to dry the dew."

This is now a gore thread.

Attached: al_gore.jpg (768x432, 36K)

Attached: gore1.jpg (300x168, 6K)

Attached: MV5BMTY3NDcyMDQ2N15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMDQxMjgyMg@@._V1_UY317_CR3,0,214,317_AL_.jpg (214x317, 10K)

The StG 44 was the first assault rifle-type weapon to be accepted into widespread service and put into mass production.[26] "The principle of this weapon — the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat — was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder."[27] The StG 44's effect on post-war arms design was wide-ranging, as made evident by Mikhail Kalashnikov's AK-47, and later Eugene Stoner's M16 and its variants. The Soviet Union was quick to adopt the assault rifle concept. The AK-47 used a similar-sized intermediate round and followed the design concept, but was mechanically very different.[28] In 1944 the US added an automatic fire capability to the M1 carbine, and issued it as the M2 carbine with 30 round magazines, fulfilling much the same function. Kits were distributed to convert M1 carbines to M2s.

The extent to which the Sturmgewehr influenced the development of the AK-47 is not clearly known.

Attached: Climate_Summit_84087.jpg-ef917_s878x581.jpg (878x581, 51K)

"Dinner and Diatribes" aptly brings the same reckless energy summed up by the album's title. A relentless, twangy guitar is the backbone of the track, working with a stomping beat to create momentum. The mood represents a new direction for Hozier, which has previously found a niche in introspective, down-tempo ballads.

>>you two were never going to get married and have kids
>Actually this is something we always talked about very vividly and made long term plans in our head
>>He "changed" because he's a guy and he's at uni and he wants to fuck as many women as possible
>Somehow I don't feel like that's what he's doing
>> until then you are just navigating life and getting your bearings. And dating and fucking.
>I don't want to 'date and fuck'. I always wanted to marry and settle down with someone I love

You're very naive. I gave you solid advice, but like most people your age you have no intention of heeding it. Doesn't matter, you'll learn one way or the other.

>making long term plans as a teenager

That always works out.

The Trump Regime has cut taxes and increased spending. I absolutely agree with the notion that increasing the deficit stimulates the economy. I have said so in my reports. Have you even bothered to read them, or are you just here to engage in mindless diatribes in favor of increasing the Federal deficit?

1/6. That's it? Can't transfer your credits?

Learning the Truth from Lies: Diatribe in Romans This is going to be a bit of a second introductory post . Seventeen verses of commentary is a bit much to cover in a single blog post, and so rather than write you an entire book chapter at one go, I'm going to split up the necessary information.

Attached: ff_al-gore.jpg (2400x1808, 754K)

A country code top-level domain (ccTLD) is an Internet top-level domain generally used or reserved for a country, sovereign state, or dependent territory identified with a country code.

All ASCII ccTLD identifiers are two letters long, and all two-letter top-level domains are ccTLDs. In 2018, the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) began implementing internationalized country code top-level domains, consisting of language-native characters when displayed in an end-user application. Creation and delegation of ccTLDs is described in RFC 1591, corresponding to ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes. IANA is responsible for determining an appropriate trustee for each ccTLD. Administration and control are then delegated to that trustee, which is responsible for the policies and operation of the domain. The current delegation can be determined from IANA's list of ccTLDs. Individual ccTLDs may have varying requirements and fees for registering subdomains. There may be a local-presence requirement (for instance, citizenship or other connection to the ccTLD), as, for example, the Canadian (ca) and German (de) domains, or registration may be open. Almost all current ISO 3166-1 codes have been assigned and do exist in DNS. However, some of these are effectively unused. In particular, the ccTLDs for the Norwegian dependency Bouvet Island (bv) and the designation Svalbard and Jan Mayen (sj) do exist in DNS, but no subdomains have been assigned, and it is Norid policy to not assign any at present. Two French territories—bl (Saint Barthélemy) and mf (Saint Martin)—still await local assignment by France's government.

The code eh, although eligible as ccTLD for Western Sahara, has never been assigned and does not exist in DNS. Only one subdomain is still registered in gb[3][not in citation given (See discussion.)] (ISO 3166-1 for the United Kingdom), and no new registrations are being accepted for it. Sites in the United Kingdom generally use uk (see below).

In the English language, the word nigger is an ethnic slur typically directed at black people. The word originated in the 18th century as an adaptation of the Spanish negro, a descendant of the Latin adjective niger, which means black.[1] It was used derogatorily, and by the mid-20th century, particularly in the United States, its usage became unambiguously pejorative, a racist insult. Accordingly, it began to disappear from popular culture, and its continued inclusion in classic works of literature has sparked controversy. Because the term is considered extremely offensive, it is often referred to by the euphemism "the N-word".

Not only did Professor Faurisson by his research and famous phrase of 60 words threaten the ideological foundations of the world order issuing from World War II, but he also called in question the religion (or counter-religion) of “Holocaustianity.”

Spic (also known as spick) is an ethnic slur commonly used in the United States of America for Latin American people of mixed ancestry including Brazil.
Etymology
Some in the United States believe that the word is a play on their pronunciation of the English "speak".[1][2][3] The Oxford English Dictionary takes spic to be a contraction of the earlier form spiggoty.[4] The oldest known use of "spiggoty" is in 1910 by Wilbur Lawton in Boy Aviators in Nicaragua, or, In League with the Insurgents. Stuart Berg Flexner, in I hear America Talking (1976), favored the explanation that it derives from "no spik Ingles" (or "no spika de Ingles").[5] These theories follow standard naming practices, which include attacking people according to the foods they eat (see Kraut and Frog) and for their failure to speak a language (see Barbarian and Gringo).

It is a veritable religion, demanding respect and submission. Its false god requires a homage of adoration, a constant burning of incense before it, a flame to be lit like at Yad Vashem, flowers to be offered, and wailing to go up to Heaven, like at the pilgrimages and processions to Auschwitz and elsewhere, while people must beat their breasts, crying out “Never again!”

“Holocaustianity,” taught from primary school to the end of one’s days, by television, cinema and every form of entertainment, does in fact ape all features of the Catholic religion. It has its martyrs (the Six Million), its Saints (Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank), its miracles (“Holocaust” survivors), its stigmatists (tattooed camp-inmates), its pilgrimages (to Auschwitz, etc.), its temples and cathedrals (“Holocaust” museums and memorials), its alms-giving to obtain pardon (never-ending reparation payments to Israel and to “Holocaust” survivors), its relics (camp inmates’ teeth, hair, shoes, etc.), its lives of the Saints (books by Elie Wiesel, Anne Frank, etc.), its torture chambers (gas-chambers), its Gospel (the verdict of the post-war Nuremberg military tribunal), its High Priests and Pontiffs (Simon Wiesenthal), its Inquisition (anti-Revisionist civil law-courts), its laws against blasphemy (strictly forbidding any questioning of the “Holocaust”), its Holy City (modern Jerusalem), its preachers and guardians (all instructors and associations in politics, the media, religion, trade unions, sports and economics), its religious Congregations (World Jewish Congress, B’nai B’rith, AIPAC, etc., etc.), its Hell (for all nationalists – except Israelis! – all revisionists, all believers in the deicide and in the New Testament replacing the Old, etc.), and its faithful (almost all of mankind).

Untermensch (German pronunciation: [ˈʔʊntɐˌmɛnʃ], underman, sub-man, subhuman; plural: Untermenschen) is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe non-Aryan "inferior people" often referred to as "the masses from the East", that is Jews, Roma, and Slavs – mainly ethnic Poles, Serbs, and later also Russians.[1][2] The term was also applied to Blacks, and persons of color.[3] Jewish people were to be exterminated[4] in the Holocaust, along with Romani people, and the physically and mentally disabled.[5][6] According to the Generalplan Ost, the Slavic population of East-Central Europe was to be reduced in part through mass murder in the Holocaust, with a majority expelled to Asia and used as slave labor in the Reich. These concepts were an important part of the Nazi racial policy.[7]

However, not only does “Holocaustianity” ape Christianity, it also turns it inside out:instead of love, hate; instead of truth, lies; instead of forgiveness, Talmudic vengeance; instead of respect for elders, the hunting down of aged camp-guards; instead of the spirit of poverty, the pursuit of reparation payments; instead of humility, the drive to dominate; instead of sharing, the pursuit of personal gain; instead of charity, blackmail; instead of respect for others, lynching; instead of quiet and discretion, publicity and noisy accusations in the media; instead of the boundless justice of God, the brazen injustice of conquerors setting themselves up as judges of the conquered, and so on and so on.

Anal bleaching is the process of lightening the color of the skin around the anus. It is done for cosmetic purposes, to make the color of the anus more uniform with the surrounding area. Some treatments are applied in an office or salon by a cosmetic technician and others are sold as cream that can be applied at home.

>

I feel that way now too. I've cried all too much

>This thread is fucking cancer and low energy LARPing.
If you say so. Not everything you read about on the internet is a lie
>Unless someone want to shit up this thread with gore ? ... Anyone ?
I actually like gore, please do. It would make my day

Yorkshire, you?

What you went through sounds truly heartbreaking but hearing your recovery, it makes me smile. Thank you for sharing. Also you replied to the wrong person but it's fine

I'm not sure what you mean

I could try. Yeah it's a 3 year course

Attached: my mom says you're a faggot.jpg (745x767, 136K)

However, not only does “Holocaustianity” ape Christianity, it also turns it inside out: instead of love, hate; instead of truth, lies; instead of forgiveness, Talmudic vengeance; instead of respect for elders, the hunting down of aged camp-guards; instead of the spirit of poverty, the pursuit of reparation payments; instead of humility, the drive to dominate; instead of sharing, the pursuit of personal gain; instead of charity, blackmail; instead of respect for others, lynching; instead of quiet and discretion, publicity and noisy accusations in the media; instead of the boundless justice of God, the brazen injustice of conquerors setting themselves up as judges of the conquered, and so on and so on.

A pornographic actor (or actress for female), adult entertainer, or porn star, is a person who performs sex acts in video that is usually characterized as a pornographic movie. Such videos tend to be made in a number of distinct pornographic subgenres and attempt to present a sexual fantasy and the actors selected for a particular role are primarily selected on their ability to create or fit that fantasy. Pornographic videos are characterized as either "softcore", which does not contain depictions of sexual penetration or "extreme fetishism" and "hardcore", which can contain depictions of penetration or extreme fetishism, or both. The genres and sexual intensity of videos is mainly determined by demand. Depending on the genre of the film, the on-screen appearance, age, and physical features of the main actors and their ability to create the sexual mood of the video is of critical importance. Most actors specialize in certain genres, such as gay sex, lesbian sex, bondage, strap-on sex, anal sex, double penetration, semen swallowing, teenage women, interracial or MILFs. Unless the genre specifies otherwise, most actors are required to appear nude in pornographic videos.

Amidst the divisions and frustrations that mark the Church of our time, there are, quietly dispersed throughout the Mystical Body, clergy and laymen striving for the recovery and promotion of the Apostolic Faith. Their good work—and the renaissance it will bring about—is easily obscured, as it is rarely offered a proper place in the tired and failing evangelical efforts of the established Church bureaucracy. But such work is real, and a sign of the continued activity of the Holy Ghost within the Church.
David Bonagura, Jr., makes a worthy contribution to these efforts in his new book Steadfast in Faith: Catholicism and the Challenges of Secularism (published by Cluny Media LLC). Bonagura is a fellow alumnus of the Jesuit’s gem, Regis High School in New York City, where he now teaches. He also lectures as an adjunct professor at St. Joseph Seminary, the seminary that now serves the Archdiocese of New York and the Dioceses of Brooklyn and Rockville Centre.

Multiple penetration
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Multiple penetration.

A person may be sexually penetrated multiple times simultaneously. Penetration may involve use of fingers, toes, sex toys, or penises. Scenes of multiple penetration are common in pornography.

If one person is penetrated by two objects, it is generically called double penetration (DP).[43] Double penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth can involve:

Simultaneous penetration of the anus by two penises or other objects. This is commonly called double anal penetration (DAP) or double stuffing.[citation needed]
Simultaneous penetration of the vagina by two penises or other objects. This is commonly called double vaginal penetration (DVP) or double stuffing.[44]
Simultaneous penetration of the vagina and anus. If this is done using penises and/or strap-on dildos, this is sometimes called the sandwich or BigMac.[citation needed] The shocker (see above) accomplishes this using several fingers of one hand.
Simultaneous penetration of the mouth and either the vagina or anus. If the penetrating objects are penises, this is sometimes called the spit roast, the Chinese finger trap, or the Eiffel tower.[citation needed]

His book is a clearly and simply written comprehensive primer that acts as both a catechism and an apology for the Faith, but is free from polemical diatribes and political-style criticism. As such, it is ideal reading for those ignorant of the Faith and the lightly-catechized who may be skeptical or confused about the actual nature and content of the Christian religion as held and taught by the Church.

The book’s ten chapters are divided into two sections: the “Preliminaries to Faith” and “The Nature of Faith.” Bonagura walks the reader through the basics of what it means to have faith in God, and then presents the implications of true faith for the believer as he lives out his life. His purpose is not only to explain, but also to answer the common objections of those who paint religious faith as mere superstition unsuited to modernity’s rational and science-based understanding of the world. In so doing, Bonagura sets out his own well-crafted rebuttals to the prevailing atheistic rationalism that is so often proffered as the ultimate challenge to believers, while also sprinkling throughout the book citations to the magisterium of the recent popes and, never fear, the Second Vatican Council.

Alexander Comfort (10 February 1920 – 26 March 2000) was a British scientist and physician known best for his nonfiction sex manual, The Joy of Sex (1972). He was an author of both fiction and nonfiction, as well as a gerontologist, anarchist, pacifist, and conscientious objector.[1]

In fact, the over-arching theme of Steadfast in Faith is the “reasonableness” of faith in God. Bonagura uses classical Catholic reasoning and logic to gently dismantle the presumptions, and attendant arguments, of the secular, rationalist worldview in order to demonstrate, once more, that religious faith is based in reason, and rests upon assumptions that are far more logically coherent than those undergirding the view that God does not exist or that revealed religion as taught by the Church is unintelligible or mythic nonsense from another age.
To this end, Bonagura succinctly and clear defines the concepts that constitute the foundations of Christian faith. In a Church where too many no longer grasp such basic notions as what it means to “have faith” and how such faith is to be lived both intellectually and practically, this book serves as a sort of modern Baltimore Catechism, elucidating the bases of the Faith and their implications for each and every believer. It is, therefore, an excellent teaching tool for presenting the Faith to high school, college, and adult students who need the intellectual grounding to understand the Faith in the mind, so that it can subsequently penetrate the heart.

Gunpowder, also known as black powder to distinguish it from modern smokeless powder, is the earliest known chemical explosive. It consists of a mixture of sulfur (S), charcoal (C), and potassium nitrate (saltpeter, KNO3). The sulfur and charcoal act as fuels while the saltpeter is an oxidizer.[1][2] Because of its incendiary properties and the amount of heat and gas volume that it generates, gunpowder has been widely used as a propellant in firearms, artillery, rockets, and fireworks, and as a blasting powder in quarrying, mining, and road building.

Gunpowder was invented in 9th-century China and spread throughout most parts of Eurasia by the end of the 13th century.[3] Originally developed by the Taoists for medicinal purposes, gunpowder was first used for warfare about 1000 AD.[4]

Gunpowder is classified as a low explosive because of its relatively slow decomposition rate and consequently low brisance. Low explosives deflagrate (i.e., burn) at subsonic speeds, whereas high explosives detonate, producing a supersonic wave.

Ignition of gunpowder packed behind a projectile generates enough pressure to force the shot from the muzzle at high speed, but usually not enough force to rupture the gun barrel. Gunpowder thus makes a good propellant, but is less suitable for shattering rock or fortifications with its low-yield explosive power. However, by transferring enough energy (from the burning gunpowder to the mass of the cannonball, and then from the cannonball to the opposing fortifications by way of the impacting ammunition) eventually a bombardier may wear down an opponent's fortified defenses.

Right now i'm in France, but I'm supposed to go to Liverpool by the end of the week. Any way to contact you ?

An admiral of the fleet or fleet admiral (sometimes also known as admiral of the navy or grand admiral) is a military naval officer of the highest rank. In many nations the rank is reserved for wartime or ceremonial appointments. It is usually a rank above admiral (which is now usually the highest rank in peacetime for officers in active service), and is often held by the most senior admiral of an entire naval service.

It is also a generic term for a senior admiral in command of a large group of ships, comprising a fleet or, in some cases, a group of fleets. If actually a rank, its name can vary depending on the country. In addition to "fleet admiral" and "admiral of the fleet", such rank names include "admiral of the navy" and "grand admiral".[Note 1]

It ranks above vice admiral, rear admiral and usually full admiral, and is usually given to a senior admiral commanding multiple fleets as opposed to just one fleet. It is often classified in NATO nations as a five-star rank.[citation needed]

Admiral of the fleet is equivalent to an army field marshal. It is also equivalent to a marshal of the air force which in many countries has a similar rank insignia to admiral of the fleet.

Steadfast in Faith is a remedy for the evangelical and catechetical poverty that continues to afflict the Church. These failings not only manifest themselves in the decline of parishes, schools, and vocations, but have contributed mightily to a great and widely noticed evil of our time: the sense, even if inchoate or unarticulated, that life is pointless, boring, and banal. The decline of religious practice is bad, but the eradication of religious knowledge is even worse. The lack of knowing in turn ruins the ability of a person to understand the trials and tribulations of life, to endure suffering and hardships, and to discern a purpose in the daily tasks of life.
In such a state, the problems of life can easily overwhelm a person, who will either be crushed by them or resort to various forms of mindless escapism. Those who are not subject to direct or substantial suffering will nonetheless drift about, bored, restless, and unable to comprehend why they find no satisfaction in the things that are routine parts of life: going to work, making money, or attending children’s sporting events.

>This thread in a nutshell

You guys are an embarrassment. I think we've found the 'nice guys'.

Attached: 1387458114001.jpg (598x266, 42K)

Faggot, often shortened to fag, is a pejorative term used chiefly in North America primarily to refer to a gay male.[3][4][5] Alongside its use to refer to gay men in particular, it may also be used as a pejorative term for a "repellent male" or to refer to women who are lesbian.[5][6][7] Its use has spread from the United States to varying extents elsewhere in the English-speaking world through mass culture, including film, music, and the Internet.
Contents

1 Etymology
2 Use in the United Kingdom
3 Early printed use
4 Usage by youth
5 Use in popular culture
5.1 Theater
5.2 Books and magazines
5.3 Music
5.4 Television
6 See also
7 References
8 Bibliography
9 External links

Etymology

The American slang term is first recorded in 1914, the shortened form fag shortly after, in 1921.[8] Its immediate origin is unclear, but it is based on the word for "bundle of sticks", ultimately derived, via Old French, Italian and Vulgar Latin, from Latin fascis.[8][9]

The word faggot has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[9] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[8][10] as female terms are often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meager living by gathering and selling firewood.[10] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word baggage as a pejorative term for old people in general).[8]

R u seriously trying to fuck a guy that claims to be a girl on fucking Yea Forums?

Queer is an umbrella term for sexual and gender minorities who are not heterosexual or cisgender. Originally meaning "strange" or "peculiar", queer came to be used pejoratively against those with same-sex desires or relationships in the late 19th century. Beginning in the late 1980s, queer activists, such as the members of Queer Nation, began to reclaim the word as a deliberately provocative and politically radical alternative to the more assimilationist branches of the LGBT community.[1][2]

In the 2000s and on, queer became increasingly used to describe a broad spectrum of non-normative[note 1] (i.e. anti-heteronormative and anti-homonormative) sexual and gender identities and politics.[3] Academic disciplines such as queer theory and queer studies share a general opposition to binarism, normativity, and a perceived lack of intersectionality, some of them only tangentially connected to the LGBT movement. Queer arts, queer cultural groups, and queer political groups are examples of modern expressions of queer identities.

Critics of the use of the term include members of the LGBT community who associate the term more with its colloquial usage as a derogatory insult,[4] those who wish to dissociate themselves from queer radicalism,[5] those who see it as amorphous and trendy,[6] and those who think the term should apply only to LGBT people - not to any and all sexual minorities - that the former slur can only be reclaimed by those it has historically been used to oppress.

Bonagura’s book opens the way to another worldview. Steadfast in Faith is rooted in the tradition of “faith seeking understanding.” It presents the reader with a notion that he has forgotten, or perhaps never knew: the Christian faith is reasonable and intelligible, if lived, it imbues every aspect of life with meaning and offers a way for man to understand matters of the head and of the heart.
Indeed, the book’s final chapter, “Faith, Evil and Suffering,” should be read by anyone struggling to understand the misfortunes and hardships of life, as Bonagura does a fine job of connecting our sufferings to those of Christ, proving that only Christianity is equipped to explain the true nature of the human condition, both in joy and in sorrow.

The relationship between biology and sexual orientation is a subject of research. While scientists do not know the exact cause of sexual orientation, they theorize that a combination of genetic, hormonal, and social factors determine it.[1][2][3] Hypotheses for the impact of the post-natal social environment on sexual orientation, however, are weak, especially for males.[4]

Biological theories for explaining the causes of sexual orientation are favored by scientists[1] and involve a complex interplay of genetic factors, the early uterine environment and brain structure.[5] These factors, which may be related to the development of a heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual orientation, include genes, prenatal hormones, and brain structure.

In short, following the unbroken tradition of all great teachers of the Christian religion, Bonagura proceeds from the simple premise that the Church has and teaches the Truth. The Truth is knowable and must be presented to all people, and not hidden, denied or rendered irrelevant to daily life. For those who wish to catechize, or to be catechized, Steadfast in Faith is a valuable resource and sorely needed. It ought to be used liberally, as part of the great project of restoring and re-presenting our Faith—above which there is no greater gift and without which we have nothing.

I'm so, so, sorry in advance for what is about to happen. Trolls are going to come into the thread and they will be saying some very hurtful things about you. They will call you some very hurtful names. But none of those things are true. How could they possibly know? How could they possibly know how beautiful you really are? How sweet and compassionate you are? I'm so sorry about them, please do not let them hurt you.

>mfw thinking about you hurting

I just want to see you shine and flourish. You are so precious to me. I want to write poetry and sing songs about my love and adoration for you and all of your perfections. My name is Brian, by the way. I know that you're tired of all the assholes and jerks. I know how you feel baby doll. I know. I am different. I am the nicest guy you will ever meet, and if anything I'll be the one in the kitchen. I live in London. Please be in London.

Attached: 1540247242142.jpg (1238x492, 86K)

Nah i'm looking for drinking buddies because i don't want to stay at my hotel.

Oh and i'm an actual faggot.

It is a fact that President Trump is far more principled than his hypocritical critics. From the founders of The Bulwark, a new “Never Trump” website to the New York Post publishing an exposé of freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s penchant for pollution-spewing car services, he stands head and shoulders above these pious wanna-bes.
Need more proof?
The so-called Democratic socialist AOC predicted that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” That led to her proposed “Green New Deal” that will supposedly stave off the doomsday apocalypse. It would outlaw gasoline- and diesel-powered automobiles, airplanes and 88 percent of American energy.

Degree of separation

Various types of chorionicity and amniosity (how the baby's sac looks) in monozygotic (one egg/identical) twins as a result of when the fertilized egg divides

The degree of separation of the twins in utero depends on if and when they split into two zygotes. Dizygotic twins were always two zygotes. Monozygotic twins split into two zygotes at some time very early in the pregnancy. The timing of this separation determines the chorionicity (the number of placentae) and amniocity (the number of sacs) of the pregnancy. Dichorionic twins either never divided (i.e.: were dizygotic) or they divided within the first 4 days. Monoamnionic twins divide after the first week.

In very rare cases, twins become conjoined twins. Non-conjoined monozygotic twins form up to day 14 of embryonic development, but when twinning occurs after 14 days, the twins will likely be conjoined.[43] Furthermore, there can be various degrees of shared environment of twins in the womb, potentially leading to pregnancy complications.

It is a common misconception that two placentas means twins are dizygotic. But if monozygotic twins separate early enough, the arrangement of sacs and placentas in utero is indistinguishable from dizygotic twins.
Type Description Day
Dichorionic-Diamniotic Normally, twins have two separate (di- being a numerical prefix for two) chorions and amniotic sacs, termed Dichorionic-Diamniotic or "DiDi". It occurs in almost all cases of dizygotic twins (except in very rare cases of fusion between their blastocysts[44]) and in 18–36%[45] (or around 25%[44]) of monozygotic (identical) twins.

DiDi twins have the lowest mortality risk at about 9 percent, although that is still significantly higher than that of singletons.[46]
Dichorionic-Diamniotic twins form when splitting takes place by the third day after fertilization.[44]

Attached: 1348649212082.jpg (250x231, 5K)

At work must’ve clicked the wrong one my apologies.

I wanted to explain more about when I said talk to other people. Being in a relationship that long, we forget how to communicate with others about our feelings, attraction to them, lusting for them.. once you’re ready and you break the ice it’s so exhilarating almost like an adrenaline rush. I know it sucks because it’s not him, but when’s the last time you flirted with someone? It’s such a different experience with someone new and though we might be longing for an old friend such as.. it may be worth it to just scope around and see what’s there to offer. No one says it has to be a forever thing, I hope you find your way. Your soul is beautiful.

Cat picture for you

Attached: 3E97DB4E-35C0-487A-B1AE-12E3B93AB33A.jpg (640x640, 71K)

Abdominal ultrasonography (also called abdominal ultrasound imaging or abdominal sonography) is a form of medical ultrasonography (medical application of ultrasound technology) to visualise abdominal anatomical structures. It uses transmission and reflection of ultrasound waves to visualise internal organs through the abdominal wall (with the help of gel, which helps transmission of the sound waves). For this reason, the procedure is also called a transabdominal ultrasound, in contrast to endoscopic ultrasound, the latter combining ultrasound with endoscopy through visualize internal structures from within hollow organs.

Abdominal ultrasound examinations are performed by gastroenterologists or other specialists in internal medicine, radiologists, or sonographers trained for this procedure.

Now the facts. Federal financial disclosures reveal that Cortez will not participate herself. While running for Congress, she spent $29,365 on over 1,000 Uber, Lyft, and Juno transactions. By the way, her campaign headquarters was a one-minute walk to the NYC seven train.
She’s not alone. Her hypocrite “environmentalist” freshman buddy, Democrat Rep. Max Rose listed just 329 ride-share transactions totally $6,000, despite living in a district with significantly less access to public transit. Yet these are the same people who dictate your lifestyle while they do the opposite.

Ohhh, ok, then I'll let you do what ever you want

The kidneys are two bean-shaped organs found in vertebrates. They are located on the left and right in the retroperitoneal space, and in adult humans are about 11 centimetres (4.3 in) in length. They receive blood from the paired renal arteries; blood exits into the paired renal veins. Each kidney is attached to a ureter, a tube that carries excreted urine to the bladder.

The nephron is the structural and functional unit of the kidney. Each human adult kidney contains around 1 million nephrons, while a mouse kidney contains only about 12,500 nephrons. The kidney participates in the control of the volume of various body fluid compartments, fluid osmolality, acid-base balance, various electrolyte concentrations, and removal of toxins. Filtration occurs in the glomerulus: one-fifth of the blood volume that enters the kidneys is filtered. Examples of substances reabsorbed are solute-free water, sodium, bicarbonate, glucose, and amino acids. Examples of substances secreted are hydrogen, ammonium, potassium and uric acid. The kidneys also carry out functions independent of the nephron. For example, they convert a precursor of vitamin D to its active form, calcitriol; and synthesize the hormones erythropoietin and renin.

Renal physiology is the study of kidney function. Nephrology is the medical specialty which addresses diseases of kidney function: these include chronic kidney disease, nephritic and nephrotic syndromes, acute kidney injury, and pyelonephritis. Urology addresses diseases of kidney (and urinary tract) anatomy: these include cancer, renal cysts, kidney stones and ureteral stones, and urinary tract obstruction.[1]

Procedures used in the management of kidney disease include chemical and microscopic examination of the urine (urinalysis), measurement of kidney function by calculating the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) using the serum creatinine; and kidney biopsy and CT scan to evaluate for abnormal anatomy.

Ocasio-Cortez has continued her both-sides-of-her-mouth diatribe since being elected. She has taken 66 jet fuel-burning flights to win a general election that never required she step outside of Queens. Yet she still pontificates her green policies with a straight face.
According to AOC, the Republicans are to blame for the sky falling.
“It’s life or death for us,” she raved. “We are losing our homes & loved ones now and the GOP doesn’t even care enough to try,” she said with a straight face as the lunatics cheered.

Carbon emissions for AOC, but not for thee.
The socialist freshman also considers Trump “a racist.” She told Anderson Cooper on “60 Minutes,” “No question, he’s a racist.” Really? Where was she when Rep. Omar (D-MN) questioned American Jews’ allegiance to the United States after having previously accused the “evil” Jewish state of “hypnotizing the world” and bribing American politicians? Huh?
AOC and her freshman Democratic buddies defended Omar, refusing to vote for a resolution specifically condemning only anti-Semitism. No mention of Omar was in the resolution.
Are any democrat voters getting mad yet, or feeling stupid for supporting this fake?

The nervous system is the part of an animal that coordinates its actions by transmitting signals to and from different parts of its body. The nervous system detects environmental changes that impact the body, then works in tandem with the endocrine system to respond to such events.[1] Nervous tissue first arose in wormlike organisms about 550 to 600 million years ago. In vertebrates it consists of two main parts, the central nervous system (CNS) and the peripheral nervous system (PNS). The CNS consists of the brain and spinal cord. The PNS consists mainly of nerves, which are enclosed bundles of the long fibers or axons, that connect the CNS to every other part of the body. Nerves that transmit signals from the brain are called motor or efferent nerves, while those nerves that transmit information from the body to the CNS are called sensory or afferent. Spinal nerves serve both functions and are called mixed nerves. The PNS is divided into three separate subsystems, the somatic, autonomic, and enteric nervous systems. Somatic nerves mediate voluntary movement. The autonomic nervous system is further subdivided into the sympathetic and the parasympathetic nervous systems. The sympathetic nervous system is activated in cases of emergencies to mobilize energy, while the parasympathetic nervous system is activated when organisms are in a relaxed state. The enteric nervous system functions to control the gastrointestinal system. Both autonomic and enteric nervous systems function involuntarily. Nerves that exit from the cranium are called cranial nerves while those exiting from the spinal cord are called spinal nerves.

Sorry to hear your now ex boyfriend was a cunt, but it's likely he's always been a cunt but you've just recently realised because he stopped trying to hide it. Regardless, time to take a deep breath, steel your heart and mind and move forward. If you wish for reading material to help you cope, I highly recommend Power of the Now by Eckhart Tolle. Excellent book that helped me through my darkest days, and believe me they've been dark.
In essence, give yourself some time to grieve and then either naturally pick yourself up, or learn techniques in order to do so. Whichever way you choose, it's closing time for this thread soon I believe.

Attached: raadhuizen_hensbroek_039_2.jpg (200x250, 9K)

Low quality bait

I'm pretty sure this isn't serious and I enjoy it for that. I hope. Maybe.

After the success of DC Talk's third album, Free at Last (1992), which was based primarily on hip-hop and pop oriented songwriting, the trio decided to innovate their style.[7][8] Michael Tait, one of the members of DC Talk, said, "I was totally into rock and roll at the time [...] I really wanted to make a rock record."[8] The band decided to focus on more rock-oriented music, with touches of rap and pop interwoven into the mix. Tait later explained, "We wanted to write songs that would hopefully touch a generation."[9] DC Talk member Toby McKeehan, writer of the song's lyrics, wrote the song to be a bold declaration of love for Jesus Christ, even in the midst of persecution.[10] In order to bring the hard-hitting reality of their message to the mainstream, DC Talk combined the raw lyrics with guitar-driven grunge-rock.[5] McKeehan took the song's title from the derogatory 1970s term "Jesus freak" and turned it on its head; he noted that when he was looking up the word "freak" in the dictionary, he saw an entry that said "ardent enthusiast".[1][8] Since the song and album's release, many of the group's fans have donned products with the term "Jesus Freak".[9]

The first time the band performed the song live, McKeehan only had about a verse written.[11] He later recalled, "We had not yet recorded it for our album, but we had a demo with one verse written. We thought it would be safe to try it [in South Africa]. We could not believe the immediate response it got."[11]

You absolute vagina. You forgot to tell her where you live so she can come round and have sex with you.

Attached: 1384724537179.jpg (899x599, 90K)

Existence of a new Clinton work was first revealed in February 2017, but at the time it was billed as a volume of essays centered around the author's favorite sayings, with only some allusions to the campaign.[6][7][8] Financial terms of that work, which had no announced title, were not publicly disclosed but industry observers expected her monetary compensation to be large.[9] The new purposing of the work and its thematic substance were revealed in July 2017.[8][2] After the title was announced, it was parodied with memes on Twitter.[10][11]
The New York Times wrote that the stated aim of the book was to offer an intimate view of what it was like for Clinton to run as the first female presidential candidate from a major party in United States history, in an often vicious and turbulent campaign. This is her third memoir, following Living History in 2003 and Hard Choices in 2014; advance publicity for the work said it would be her "most personal" yet[1] and quoted from her words in the book's Introduction: "In the past, for reasons I try to explain, I've often felt I had to be careful in public, like I was up on a wire without a net. Now I'm letting my guard down."[1] Clinton promised a new level of candor as a major theme of the initial publicity surrounding the book.[12][7][2] The work was also said to include some self-help ideas about how to get past highly unpleasant experiences.

>How long did it take you to finally stop feeling so upset over it? Did you ever?

There's a part of me that will always hang onto her. No matter how bad things got I knew that she was my soul mate. Even as we were breaking up with each other we still said that we loved each other. However I knew that it was hard as fuck for me so I did everything I could to make her hate me, that way she wouldn't be feeling as shitty as I did.

What Happened is organized into six main parts, entitled: Perseverance, Competition, Sisterhood, Idealism and Realism, Frustration, and Resilience. Each part has from two to five chapters within it.[14]
The book opens with a scene from the United States presidential inauguration of 2017,[15] attended by Clinton and her husband, where she watched President Donald Trump take office. She begins:
Deep breath. Feel the air fill my lungs. This is the right thing to do. The country needs to see that our democracy still works, no matter how painful this is. Breathe out. Scream later.[16]
The book closes with a scene from a speech she gave at her alma mater Wellesley College.[17] Clinton concludes the book with the advice to readers to "Keep going."[18]

The book is a first-person account by one of the candidates involved in the United States presidential election, 2016.[19] The book is dedicated to "the team that stood with me in 2016,"[20] and one of the chapters of the book is largely a list of everyone who worked on her campaign.[15]
In the book, Clinton tries to explain the combination of factors that led to her electoral loss, including James Comey, Vladimir Putin, Barack Obama, Mitch McConnell, The New York Times, the media as a whole, Bernie Sanders and his supporters, Green Party candidate Jill Stein, sexism, white resentment, and herself, specifically her comments on putting "coal miners out of business" and labeling her opponent's supporters as a "basket of deplorables".[21][15][22]
The book contains a number of Clinton's policy proposals, featuring her analysis of a problem area and her ideas for how to solve it.[17]
Another subject of the book is how to get through difficult experiences. Clinton discusses her practice of yoga and her liking of chardonnay,[23] but in particular, she lists a large number of books that helped her cope with the loss in one way or another. These included mysteries by Louise Penny, Jacqueline Winspear, Donna Leon, and Caroline and Charles Todd. They also included the Neapolitan novels of Elena Ferrante, the spiritual works of Henri Nouwen, and the collected poems of Maya Angelou, Marge Piercy and T. S. Eliot.[23]

The hardcover edition was published on September 12, 2017; it immediately went to the top of the Barnes & Noble, Amazon,[24] and the USA Today bestseller lists.[25]
It debuted at number one on The New York Times Best Seller List for both hardcover nonfiction and combined print and e-book nonfiction sales where it stayed for 2 weeks.[26][27] It dropped to number two on both lists in its third week.[28] By the beginning of November it had spent six weeks in the top four positions of the list.[29] By the beginning of January 2018 the book had spent sixteen weeks on the list.[30] The following week it fell off.[31]
What Happened sold 300,000 copies in its first week.[32][33] The first-week sales were lower than her 2003 memoir, Living History, but triple the first-week sales of Clinton's previous memoir, 2014's Hard Choices.[32][34]
The first-week hardcover sales for What Happened were 167,000.[32][33] This marked the strongest hardcover debut for a nonfiction book since 2012's No Easy Day.[32] Simon & Schuster also announced that What Happened sold more e-books in its first-week than any nonfiction book had since 2010.[32]
The book debuted at number one of the Publishers Weekly "Top 10 overall" and "hardcover nonfiction" bestseller lists. In its third week on the lists, it dropped to number three of the "Top 10 overall" and to number two of the "hardcover nonfiction" lists with a total of 311,982 hardcover copies sold.[35][36] As of December 10, 2017, the book had sold 448,947 hardcover copies.[37]

This is a sound sample from a commercial recording. Its inclusion in Jesus Freak (song) is claimed as fair use because:

It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken.
It is used to specifically illustrate the song's noted used of dynamic shifts, and is used to enhance commentary on its composition.
It is a short sample from a much longer recording, and could not be used as a substitute for the original commercial recording.
It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value.
It is believed that this sample will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original recording.

I believe that this use of the excerpt is in good faith, and that its inclusion enhances rather than reduces the commercial value of the recording from which it was drawn.

Imagine so devoid of human empathy that you mock someone for giving another advice. Are you truly that pathetic?

Attached: 1555256929079.jpg (600x556, 48K)

What Happened also performed strongly in its release outside of the United States.
In Canada, What Happened debuted atop The Globe and Mail's hardcover non-fiction best sellers list.[38] It remained atop the chart for six consecutive weeks.[39][40][41][42][43][44]
In the United Kingdom, What Happened debuted atop The Sunday Times bestseller list.[33]
In Ireland, What Happened was able to peak atop the Nielson Bookscan component chart for hardcover non-fiction.[45] On the primary Irish Nielsen Bookscan chart tracking sales of both hardcover and paperback books in all genres, What Happened debuted at number ten (selling 767 copies).[46] It jumped to number seven in its second week (selling 800 copies).[47] It jumped further to number four in its third week (selling 1,117 copies).[45] In its fourth week it dropped to number six (however with consistent sales, selling 1,116 copies).[48] It exited the top-ten in its seventh week.[49]
In New Zealand, What Happened debuted number 8 on Nielsen Bookscan's "International Non-fiction - Adults" chart.[50]
In Australia, What Happened charted on Books+Publishing's bestsellers chart.[51]

My name is Gen. Quon. I like to edit articles related to music, television, Latin literature, archaeology, anthropology, history, and religion.

For The Washington Post, writer David Weigel noted that Clinton "apologizes to the reader, who has to relive all of this. 'It wasn't healthy or productive,' she writes, 'to dwell on the ways I felt I'd been shivved.' It's a perfect word, 'shivved.' The Hillary Clinton of this bitter memoir ... again and again ... blames herself for losing, apologizing for her 'dumb' email management, for giving paid speeches to banks, for saying she would put coal miners 'out of business.' She veers between regret and righteous, sometimes in the same paragraph."[56]
A review in the Chicago Tribune by Heidi Stevens stated that the passages in the book about Russia's involvement in the US election "read like a spy novel".[19] Thomas Frank in The Guardian contends that "Unfortunately, her new book is less an effort to explain than it is to explain away. ... Still, by exercising a little discernment, readers can find clues to the mystery of 2016 here and there among the clouds of blame-evasion and positive thinking."[17]
An analysis by Ezra Klein, editor-in-chief of Vox, saw a different role for the book, making reference to Clinton's belief that progress is best made by working within the political system: "What Happened has been sold as Clinton's apologia for her 2016 campaign, and it is that. But it's more remarkable for Clinton's extended defense of a political style that has become unfashionable in both the Republican and Democratic parties."[57]
David L. Ulin of the Los Angeles Times wrote in his review for the newspaper that the book is a "necessary — if at times clunky and unconvincing — retrospective" and that "She should have been president, and she knows it; regret and loss is palpable throughout the book. And yet it's also the case that she remains unable to reckon with just what happened in the 2016 election, looking for explanations, for reasons, while at the same time never quite uncovering her own complicity."[18]

A good article (GA) is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards but is not featured article quality. Good articles meet the good article criteria, passing through the good article nomination process successfully. They are well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. Good articles do not have to be as comprehensive as featured articles, but they should not omit any major facets of the topic: a comparison of the criteria for good and featured articles describes further differences.

Currently, out of the 5,839,158 articles on Wikipedia, 29,407 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 199), most of which are listed below. An additional 5,512 are listed as featured articles (about 1 in 1,060) and 3,462 as featured lists (about 1 in 1,690). Because articles are only included on one list, a good article that has been promoted to featured status is removed from the good articles list. Adding good and featured articles and lists together gives a total of 38,381 articles (about 1 in 153). A small plus sign inside a circle (This symbol designates good articles on Wikipedia.) in the top-right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is good.

The process for designating an article as a good article is intentionally straightforward. Any editor, preferably one who creates or contributes to an article, who believes that the article meets the good article criteria, may nominate the article for an impartial reviewer to assess. Another editor may review the article after selecting it from a queue of good article nominations then evaluating it against the good article criteria. If it is accepted by the reviewer, the nominated article is added to the list of good articles below. Anyone may nominate or review an article by following the instructions.

Porta Romana ("Roman Gate") is a former city gate of Milan, Italy. In its present form, the gate dates back to the 16th century Spanish walls of Milan; its origins can be traced further back to the Roman walls of the city, which had a corresponding "Roman Gate" roughly in the same area. Porta Romana was the first and the main imperial entrance of the entire city of Milan, as it was the starting point of the road leading to Ancient Rome.

The name "Porta Romana" is used both to refer to the gate proper and to the surrounding district ("quartiere"), part of the Zone 4 administrative division of Milan (and bordering with zone 5), located south-east of the city centre.

TITS OR GTFO lets see what he's missing, you're gonna be fucking a new guy every week now anyway, might as well show us the goods

For over a year now, I’ve spewed venomous diatribes, dictated recaps of the day’s interactions, and engaged in generally mindless chattering, all without another person in the room. In each case, I’ve been alone while shouting at the walls and chastising people in my past who did me grave injustices; cracking jokes; explaining my motivations; quoting precedent and reviewing my formal education on various subjects—to nobody. But whenever I am in the company of others, I listen attentively and respond thoughtfully and comparatively sparingly. What in the world is going on?
It started in February 2014 when my mother, with whom I’d been living, was delivered into professional care for her terminal illness, leaving me to live alone for the first time in my life. It would be easy to attribute these peculiar outbursts to the stress of loss and grief, adjusting to being alone at a time in my life when I was at my most disabled and still in the midst of recovering from the then relatively recent break-up of my marriage. To add even more stress, I was also trying to quit smoking while all this was happening–and going through menopause.

Hey good for you, i would say you made the best decision based on what you wrote about him and his acts. I cant imagine how i would feel after a brakeup cuz im still alone and prob will be forever, but hey be positive about it and think about all the positive sides that came with braking up with this guy. Find some hobbies and activities talk and hangout with friends and keep yourself busy. Its how im living for the past 3years and so far its kinda working. And dont be afraid to trust another man it can be hard but it could bring you joy and fun times. fare well user

Given the above, I can make a strong case for stress and grief causing my inability to remain silent while I am alone. But knowing I have damage in the periventricular white matter and possibly undiagnosed gray matter cortical damage that MRIs don’t pick up prevented me from settling exclusively on the stress hypothesis. This is when I got online and did a little research, hoping to find a piece of information that pointed to one cogent probability.
My reading about typical kinds of brain damage among MS patients yielded only generalities, much like my conversations with neurologists. For example, lesions in the periventricular white matter is a hallmark of relapsing-remitting MS, and yet, when a brain MRI revealed my first such lesions in the brain, I asked my neuro if those lesions were causing any of my symptoms. He told me they were asymptomatic, that the region was considered a no man’s land and was not considered an area of the brain where important functions happened.
Extensive gray matter damage of the cortex is typical in the progressive forms of MS, though high-powered experimental MRIs have revealed cortical damage in new MS patients who are in the inflammatory stage.

stop it

did you gave him your ass?

Lesions in the frontal lobe can cause irritability, affect working memory, impulsiveness, good and bad judgment, and risk-taking with awareness of possible consequences.
But none of these things really explain my behavior. Being alone for long periods of time removed my inhibitions. Years beforehand, I would carry on with those same diatribes, rages, speeches, explanations and declarations inside my head. Over time my jaw started moving in tandem with my thoughts, so much so that my mother told me she could tell I was thinking intensely because I was moving my jaw muscles. I refrained from vocalizing it for her sake; I didn’t want to scare her. But once she was gone, there was no reason to hold back anymore.
If we step back and view the broader perspective, it’s not such a strange phenomenon. People living with MS carry a tremendous internal burden from the physical stress of pushing our bodies through the typical movements of everyday living, and the emotional burden of coping with such effort on top of the usual stresses of life and the uncertainty of one’s future progression. The larger the burden, the more a person needs to lighten the load. Talking to one’s self can be a comfort, but it can also mean we have unresolved pain associated with some past injustice that we never had a chance to confront. What’s more, it can happen when we don’t have other people to confide in.

One day I confronted someone that had caused me great pain and who had been the focus of my angry rants for many months. Afterwards, I was quieter while alone at home. That particular rant ceased as my pain and anger dissipated. In that case, confrontation was healing, but I was lucky in that the person was sympathetic and helpful. It very well could have gone the other way.
There are no easy answers for or solutions to our pain, our thoughts, our behaviors, or our symptoms. The important thing is to be aware of what we’re doing or experiencing and ponder the possible reasons behind it. No matter how we investigate it, whether by counseling, doctoring or psychiatry, a deep and long talk with a trusted confidant, or a safe confrontation with the object of our discomfort, it all boils down to living our lives consciously.

Right in my fee fee's. I'm glad you took the time out of your busy masturbatory schedule to pat this poor, poor girl on the head and comforted her in this dark, tragic time. You truly are a nice gentlemen.

Attached: 1357032117259.jpg (400x594, 97K)

I like whoever is behind these posts. Godspeed gen. Quon.

Kek

Satan,[a] also known as the Devil,[b] is an entity in the Abrahamic religions that seduces humans into sin or falsehood. In Christianity and Islam, he is usually seen as either a fallen angel or a jinn, who used to possess great piety and beauty, but rebelled against God, who nevertheless allows him temporary power over the fallen world and a host of demons. In Judaism, Satan is typically regarded as a metaphor for the yetzer hara, or "evil inclination", or as an agent subservient to God.

A figure known as "the satan" first appears in the Tanakh as a heavenly prosecutor, a member of the sons of God subordinate to Yahweh, who prosecutes the nation of Judah in the heavenly court and tests the loyalty of Yahweh's followers by forcing them to suffer. During the intertestamental period, possibly due to influence from the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, the satan developed into a malevolent entity with abhorrent qualities in dualistic opposition to God. In the apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Yahweh grants the satan (referred to as Mastema) authority over a group of fallen angels, or their offspring, to tempt humans to sin and punish them. In the Synoptic Gospels, Satan tempts Jesus in the desert and is identified as the cause of illness and temptation. In the Book of Revelation, Satan appears as a Great Red Dragon, who is defeated by Michael the Archangel and cast down from Heaven. He is later bound for one thousand years, but is briefly set free before being ultimately defeated and cast into the Lake of Fire.

In Christianity, Satan is also known as the Devil and, although the Book of Genesis does not mention him, he is often identified as the serpent in the Garden of Eden. In the Middle Ages, Satan played a minimal role in Christian theology and was used as a comic relief figure in mystery plays. During the early modern period, Satan's significance greatly increased as beliefs such as demonic possession and witchcraft became more prevalent.

Isn't is too often the case that when we're feeling strong emotions which distress us that we are also encountering negative thoughts about our personal dramas. Whether the thought or emotion comes first is not important. What's relevant is that emotions and thoughts are inter-related. And what's most important is that we can control our thoughts and emotions and then what comes out of our mouth.
That way we can stop hurting those who are closest to us and our most loved ones because of the intimacy of our relationships, are hurt the most by our hurtful words.
What I've discovered through years of working with chakras is that if I don't regularly cleanse my solar plexus chakra and cut unwanted and unauthorized energy cords that I'm more prone to getting angry and say words which I later regret.

Through the basic course in pranic healing I have learned how to do this. Cut cords.
When I'm not aware or conscious of my emotions and thoughts then I'm more likely to speak without having monitored how I'm feeling and thinking at that particular time.
Also I've discovered the importance of controlling one's thought energies, maintaining positive and nurturing thoughts.

Sorry to hear that. It was my day off so I went to the garden centre and played Borderlands for several hours.

Attached: fart.png (562x475, 303K)

As soon as I allow myself to dwell on the negative aspects of my reality that's when I lose control of my emotional center or solar plexus chakra. It quickly becomes overactive and the negative thought and emotional energies which occupy my aura space take control of my throat chakra and I spout out venomous diatribes which are not truly representative of my soul space or being.
Afterwards I find myself saying to myself: what was that about? Where did that come from? And I recognize that I have allowed my emotional body to get congested and over-active.
So I meditate on my heart and ajna chakra while cleansing my solar plexus chakra with positive intent.

We are what we think, and we feel as we think. So I make every effort to maintain control over my thoughts, cleansing out negative and destructive thought energies which inhabit my mental aura.
Some people don't know about auras and others speak with confusion about their nature and essence.
The esoteric teachings compiled by Grand Master Choa Kok Sui tell us that we have an etheric or auric body which connects to and surrounds our physical body; this is the nearest energy body to our physical body. This aura is the one which integrates the life force or prana with our organs and body's functions.
The next aura is our emotional body which is attached to our solar plexus chakra and liver. This aura is occupied by feeling entities or emotional entities.
The next layer of aura is our mental body which is attached to our throat and ajna centers. This aura is populated by thought forms and thought entities.
The last outer aura is our spiritual aura attached to our pineal gland, crown chakra and to the higher soul located approximately one foot above the crown.

And I'm glad you took time out of yours to mock some random person online for giving advice. You truly are a big man for mocking people for being empathetic. Does it make you feel good? Does it make you feel like you've actually accomplished something?

These auras are energy bodies and have different colours as they are attached to different chakras or energy centers:
the physical aura being more likely red or orange focusing on the basic, sex, and navel chakras controlling survival, reproduction, and identity.
The emotional aura being yellow to green associated with solar plexus and heart chakras.
The mental body or aura is progressing from the green into the blue and indigo associated with the throat and ajna chakras.
The spiritual body or aura is blue to violet and associated with the forehead, crown, and higher soul.

Aristotle's preferred term for the emotions was pathos [pl. pathe], which makes the emotions largely passive states, located within a general metaphysical landscape contrasting active and passive, form and matter, and actuality and potentiality. The pathe are first and foremost responses found in the embodied animal to the outside world, very much like perceptions. They can thus be associated broadly with matter insofar as they represent capacities or potentialities that need to be actualized by external causes, which also explains how they are directed at objects. Of course, the pathe are not pure potentialities. They are actualized in the experience of an occurrent emotion, and even the mere capacity to experience pathe requires a determinate form, a soul. Moreover, the pathe have close connections to action, and Aristotle treated them as movements of a sort. For all these reasons, the pathe can be attributed to the soul insofar as the soul informs a body. Yet since their causes lie outside of the animal who experiences them, the question arises whether and to what extent we can control them.

That is a question addressed in several different ways by the most important Aristotelean texts on the pathe available to later ancient and medieval authors: the Nicomachean Ethics and Rhetoric. Each work presents lists of emotions, although where the Nichomachean Ethics serves up 11, the Rhetoric dishes out a full 14. They differ too in their aims and tenor: the Nichomachean Ethics is concerned with the place of the pathe within the economy of acting according to our habits and desires as moderated by reason, whereas the Rhetoric concerns the arousal and management of pathe in the context of producing persuasion. In both cases, however, the pathe are treated as susceptible to rational influence and voluntary action, although not directly subject to choice.

The Nichomachean Ethics characterizes pathe as the “feelings accompanied by pleasure or pain,” listing appetite, anger, fear, confidence, envy, joy, love, hatred, longing, emulation, and pity as examples (1105b21). Nonetheless, it will be easiest, as well as consistent with the bulk of Aristotle's analyses, to treat pathos as more or less equivalent to desire, or appetite in the broad sense. (The Rhetoric makes the identification explicit, e.g., at 1378a31. But just to keep things interesting, De Anima, treats the pathe, along with “desire” and “wish,” as a species of appetite at 414b3). The pathe form one of the three main categories found in the soul, distinguished from faculties, on the one hand, and states [hexeis], on the other. They are, however, very closely associated with the latter. States constitute the virtues [arete] or vices of the non-rational part of the soul, which can, however, either conform to or violate right reason. They do so through their connections with actions. The pathe, along with the appetites, motivate action (even to the point of provoking bodily changes such as internal temperature, color and expression). The dispositions to feel them in certain ways are, in turn, shaped by our habits of action, and states may be understood as the dispositions to feel particular kinds of pathe on certain occasions. States are, in fact, “the things in virtue of which we stand well or badly with reference to the passions [pathe]” (1105b26).

I would try to transfer just to get your course done at a better school, not like you have anything to keep you at the sub-par one anymore. Live and learn.

The pathe are not themselves virtues or vices. But states are, and that means that the pathe are morally significant. More generally, because emotional experience is intrinsic to any life, any account of the good life must give them their due. Now, certain pathe (spite, envy) are always bad. But despite characterizing the human good as a life exercising “activity of the soul in conformity with excellence [or virtue]” (1098a16), and despite counting reason (but not feeling pathe) as a distinctively human activity, Aristotle took the excellence of the excellent human to consist partly in experiencing pathe in the right way, to the right extent, and on the right occasions. Indeed, the cultivation of character is largely a matter of cultivating the disposition for appropriate experience of the pathe, which is as important as developing our abilities for deliberative reason. The appropriate emotional dispositions may, in fact, be even more crucial to the good life, since our capacity to feel the passions seems intrinsic, while our ability to reason develops with maturity and can be crucially affected by our emotional dispositions. In any case, the truly excellent person will not only reason well about what to do in particular situations, but will feel the appropriate desires and pathe in those situations. For this reason, the intellectual virtue for deliberating about what to do, phronesis, is distinguished from the other practical intellectual virtues of techne in part by its involvement with pathe.

This comfortable relation between the emotions and reason, however, hits some snags when Aristotle turned to the distinctive ways in which we can fail to act well. For example, the akratic, or weak-willed person, recognizes what should be done without actually doing it. Aristotle's solution to this puzzling, if common, phenomenon, was to lay the blame at the feet of some pathos, particularly the pathe of either anger or pleasure. Here these pathe might seem to oppose reason. Aristotle, however, appears to have thought of them more as exercising a cognitive interference that disrupts our completion of the practical syllogism than as an external force overturning our otherwise smoothly operating reason. (For this reason, the pathe seem to have cognitive aspects themselves; see Kraut 2005). In contrast, the enkratic person feels the same disruptive pathos, but does not give way to them in action. The enkratic is thus superior to the akratic, but still not as admirable as the person who feels the pathe as the virtuous person would, that is, in accord with the dictates of right reason. So Aristotle's ethical works treat the pathe both as susceptible to reason and as integral to the good life, even as they allow that the emotions can impair our reason.

The risk of emotional disruption of our reason and the management of the emotions are topics explored much further in the Rhetoric.

Wait I just noticed your thread got taken over by an asspie, my condolences.

That Aristotle would even consider the topic is noteworthy, for it suggests that techniques for producing belief, among which appeals to emotion are prominent, need not be relegated to sophistry, but make a proper subject for philosophy.

Things seem a bit less rosy, however, when we turn to the three distinct sources of persuasion Aristotle admitted: trust in the character of the speaker, the passions of the audience, and the “proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech [logos] itself” (1356a4). The first and last seem sources that are themselves reasons – either reasons for holding it probable that the speaker's conclusions are true, or reasons for the conclusion itself. But arousing the audience's passions seems another matter altogether. Indeed, Aristotle here characterized the pathe as “all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain and pleasure” (1378a21), for which he produces the example of anger, exactly the interfering pathos held responsible for any cases of akrasia. But despite the acknowledged risk that the pathe can be used for sophistic ends, warping our beliefs and decisions and producing commitments on indefensible grounds, Aristotle did not hold that all emotional appeals must do so. The problem with sophistic rhetoric is that it makes its emotional pitch in ways independent of the subject under discussion, perhaps even distracting from the subject at hand (e.g., by invoking anger at Al Qaeda, while considering the merits of invading Iraq). Presumably, however, a particular subject may have characteristics that themselves provoke certain emotions, indeed that should provoke certain emotions, and appropriate rhetoric will highlight those features without ever leaving the subject at hand. In this respect, the arousing of emotions might even count as a kind of salience argument for the beliefs so produced (e.g., anger at particular outrageous events can serve as a reason for believing that a politician should be impeached).

Kek, the asspie is running low on gas now

More generally, the pathe pervade our lives; our judgments are always affected by our emotions and moods, not just in perverse and pernicious cases. In this respect, any rhetorician attempting to produce belief must take account of the emotional state of her audience. This is true whatever her motives might be. Aristotle considered the true to be inherently, but not overridingly persuasive, and so even the rhetorician most sincerely devoted to the truth will need to consider how to manage the emotions of her audience so that it will be amenable to belief in truth. Doing so will require not only some assessment of the character of the audience, but also a great deal of insight into the nature and causes of the pathe, and Aristotle devoted a great deal of Book II of the Rhetoric to a kind of taxonomy and physiognomy of the emotions (thereby inaugurating what was to become a popular sport). Aristotle's list is copious, listing some 14 passions. Each receives an analysis of its causes (qualities) and objects (persons) – which together provide a complex intentional content for the emotion.

>Wait I just noticed your thread got taken over by an asspie, my condolences.
youkeepusingthatword.webm

Aristotle also described the mental conditions under which a pathos is felt, that is the relations between the person feeling it and that which provides its content. But it is an odd list, comprising anger, calm, friendship, enmity, fear, confidence, shame, shamelessness, kindness, unkindness, pity, indignation, envy, and emulation. Presumably, Aristotle thought that these were the pathe most likely to be of use to the rhetorician (even if he ought not raise envy or shamelessness in his audience), but there seems little other rhyme or reason to the selection, and no reason to think that it is comprehensive (especially since it excludes pathe enumerated in the Nicomachean Ethics). One notable organizing feature is Aristotle's assumption that the pathe fall into contrasting pairs, although it may be a bit of a stretch to see the contrast between, e.g., envy and emulation, or to take certain candidates, e.g., calm, as a full-fledged pathe. Also interesting is Aristotle's discussion of how the general psychology of the emotions will map onto different types of character, ages, and fortunes, again a topic he might have considered particularly useful for the rhetorician.

So Aristotle's assessment of the pathe is mixed: they can be cultivated by reason and figure in the good life; they can also disrupt our reason and action, and be used for nefarious ends. Indeed, by rendering our judgments unstable and prone to conflict, the emotions may pose a basic threat to human social life. But whether happy or dangerous, Aristotle certainly thought that the emotions are a fixture of human life that cannot be ignored. Ethics cultivates them in developing character; rhetoric manages them to produce belief. To these techniques, we might also add the psychological discipline accomplished by poetry, particularly tragedy. The notion of katharsis, or “discharge” of the unpleasant emotions of pity and fear may be the most famous part of Aristotle's Poetics, although the text mentions it only in passing.

aw did he ruin your larping faggot?

Serpents (Hebrew: נחש nāḥāš) are referred to in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament. The symbol of a serpent or snake played important roles in religious and cultural life of ancient Egypt, Canaan, Mesopotamia and Greece. The serpent was a symbol of evil power and chaos from the underworld as well as a symbol of fertility, life and healing.[1] נחש Nāḥāš, Hebrew for "snake", is also associated with divination, including the verb form meaning "to practice divination or fortune-telling". In the Hebrew Bible, Nāḥāš occurs in the Torah to identify the serpent in the Garden of Eden. Throughout the Hebrew Bible, it is also used in conjunction with saraph to describe vicious serpents in the wilderness. The tannin, a dragon monster, also occurs throughout the Hebrew Bible. In the Book of Exodus, the staffs of Moses and Aaron are turned into serpents, a nāḥāš for Moses, a tannin for Aaron. In the New Testament, the Book of Revelation makes use of ancient serpent and the Dragon several times to identify Satan or the devil. (Rev 12:9; 20:2) The serpent is most often identified with the hubristic Satan, and sometimes with Lilith.

The story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of man represents a tradition among the Abrahamic peoples, with a presentation more or less symbolical of certain moral and religious truths.[2]

It did not, in fact, have much influence on literature and aesthetic theory through the seventeenth century (although the Poetics was an important model in other respects, especially for considering how emotional responses could be directed at different kinds of characters). However, starting in the eighteenth century, the notion of katharsis gained ground, particularly since it addressed a question of enormous importance to 18th century aesthetics, namely how something like tragedy, which would seem to revolve around situations invoking unpleasant emotions, can nonetheless be enjoyable. The notion of katharsis at least hints at the complex and multivalent emotional states that would be further analyzed by later theorists such as Hume.

My resolve is good and I feel fine. I'm not the one being schmaltzy in the hope some 'girl' on Yea Forums pays attention to me. Would she give a fuck about your NEET problems? Nope. She got her validation fill and fucked off. Your pathetic and this is why women never take to you. Too much of a vagina.

I'm not mocking you, I'm advising you.

Attached: 1345632008053.jpg (290x290, 54K)

Compared with Aristotle's moderation, the Stoics seem pretty intolerant of the pathe, stressing their cognitive, eudaimonistic, and moral failings, while recommending their elimination. The Stoic evaluation of the passions was extremely influential – and contentious – for later authors, particularly among the seventeenth-century neo-Stoics, as well as among those authors interested in defending the value of the passions. Stoicism's thoroughgoing naturalism also made it a force to be reckoned with for cutting-edge 17th century philosophers. Since Stoic doctrines were largely transmitted to early modern philosophers through the writings of Cicero and Seneca, it is mainly the views current in late, Roman stoicism that matter for our purposes. But these sources sometimes mixed up specifically Stoic doctrines with views taken from other schools, particularly with skepticism in Cicero's De Finibus bonorum et malorum.

Like Aristotle, the Stoics also spoke of pathe and located them within the passive, material element of the universe. This feature of the concept was emphasized by Cicero, who in “teaching philosophy to speak Latin,” considered how to translate the Greek term pathos:

I might have rendered this literally, styled them ‘diseases,’ but the word ‘disease’ would not suit all instances; for example, no one speaks of pity, nor yet anger, as a disease, though the Greeks term these pathos. Let us then accept the word ‘emotion’ [perturbatio] the very sound of which seems to denote something vicious and these emotions are not excited by any natural influence.” (De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 255)

Following Cicero, Roman Stoics frequently translated pathos as perturbatio, which came to have a particularly negative ring. Seneca used affectus, while others preferred passio, which explicitly connected the emotions with ‘undergoing,’ or ‘suffering’ (Levi 1964, 14-5, also Meyer 2000, 60). All of these translations, however, emphasized passivity, particularly the psychological passivity of the emotions and the sense in which they are out of our voluntary control, and indeed not a proper part of ourselves.

In its most austere form (which probably borrowed greatly from the Cynics, and came to be associated with Cynicism), Stoic ethics identifies the good life with virtue and both the good life and virtue with self-sufficiency, i.e., that which is intrinsically good, proper to us and fully within our control. The passions, however, are responses to external events, outside of our control, and so antithetical to virtue and happiness. To be prey to the passions is to violate the basic outlines of our nature – indeed of the rational shape of nature as a whole, to which we should submit as law and fate. Such is the lot of most of us, which on Stoic reckoning makes us thoroughly and equally vicious, although for reasons outside of our control. A genuine sage, however, would achieve a state of apatheia, or what Cicero calls tranquillitas, the absence of alien pathe. That state is the virtue and good life to which we all aspire, although only the sage achieves it, and sages are (at best) few and far between.

But our situation may not be quite as hopeless as the emphasis on the ungovernable and alien character of the passions might make it seem. For the Stoics did not simply see the passions as brute reactions to external events, but as cognitive responses, judgments about the nature and value of various (present or future) states of affairs. (For this reason, both Cicero and Seneca held that animals do not experience genuine passions.) To be prey to the passions is to form judgments that overvalue those states of affairs – that are, in effect, false judgments and mistaken commitments. And although nobody chooses to make mistakes, our judgments are not completely out of our control. We can practice certain kinds of mental discipline to increase our capacity to judge correctly, decrease our capacity to be overwhelmed by the passions, and in effect, allow us to gain control of ourselves.

Following the early Stoics, Cicero enumerated and organized the emotions into four basic categories: fear [metus]; pain, distress, sorrow or even sickness [aegritudo]; lust, desire or appetite [libido]; and pleasure or delight [laetitia, translating the Greek hedone]. The basis for organization is the kinds of things under evaluation and the nature of the judgment. Aegritudo is a (false) evaluation of present things as bad, while libido is an equally flawed evaluation of future, or absent things as good. These evaluations are mistaken, since only virtue is intrinsically good, whereas the things that are the objects of these emotions are themselves “indifferent” (although they may be “preferred” or “dispreferred”).

There are a number of subspecies of these broad categories. For instance, Seneca identified anger as a species of desire, desire for revenge. The imposition of an organizing schema on the proliferation of emotions made them more manageable, a feature that would appeal greatly to later authors, and highlighted their evaluative and cognitive content. But the emotions are not solely cognitive; they are soul states, and the Stoics held that the soul was itself a particular tensioning of the material pneuma, part of the “breath,” or “wind” that ran through and gave form to everything in the world. Corresponding to the four categories of emotions would thus be corresponding material states of the pneuma. These states may endure even after we correct our judgments.

Nevertheless, the Stoic view of the emotions was not relentlessly gloomy. Despite the description of the sage as in a state of apatheia, the Stoics also allowed that the sage can experience eupatheia, good feelings. These are affective states, but supposedly different in kind from the genuine passions and without their cognitive, moral, and metaphysical failings. Instead of over-evaluations of and reactions to indifferent, alien features of the external world, eupatheia are cognitively appropriate (and active) judgments directed at the things that are truly important to the good life, particularly at other rational beings. In Cicero's terminology, the sage replaces ‘appetite’ with ‘wish’ [voluntas], including kindness, generosity, warmth, and affection. Instead of feeling fear or hedonistic pleasure, the sage experiences ‘watchfulness’ [cautio] or joy [gaudium]. No eupatheia, however, correspond to pain. In contrast to the pneumatic aspects of the passions, eupatheia, such as kindness, involve a “moderate and reasonable stretching or expansion of the soul” (Baltzly 2004, sec. 5).

I just scrolled through this whole bread and didn't see a single titty, GTFO!

For all its austerity, the Stoic conception of virtue, the good life, and happiness owed a great deal to the notion of a healthy, well-functioning organism, one that lives in accord with its nature and the nature of things. This is not simply metaphorical: important concepts (such as pneuma) were heavily indebted to Hellenistic medical traditions. Even more, Stoic materialism allowed emotional disturbances, vice and unhappiness to be understood equally well as disturbances in the attunement of the body. Nonetheless, the best remedies may be cognitive: indeed, in his Tusculan Disputations, Cicero argued for the therapeutic value of philosophy itself, for its role as the medicine of the soul – a point appreciated by later authors such as Descartes who goes so far as to recommend reading Seneca for treating sadness and a low fever.

Similar views were expressed by Galen in such works as The Best Doctor is also a Philosopher. Galen adopted many Stoic physical, metaphysical, epistemological and ethical views on the pathe. But he also drew off an independent Hippocratic tradition for treating the humours and the physiology of the emotions and produced an influential account of the “spirits.” Whereas most early Stoics adopted a unitary view of the soul, Galen favored Plato's tri-partite model, for which he assigned various functions to different parts of the body.

Reason is located in the brain, emotion (particularly anger) in the heart, and desire in the liver. Each of these organs produces particular spirits, the substance of which was a rarified fluid constituted of blood and pneuma, and which governed specific biological functions (sense perception and movement, blood flow and bodily temperature; and nutrition and metabolism). Galen's map thus provided a physiological basis for what became a commonplace distinction between ‘angry’ (irascible) emotions directed at overcoming obstacles, and simple ‘desiring (concuspicible) emotions (see the discussion of Aquinas below). The humours were also assigned to specific organs. Galen's approach was strongly teleological, assigning each location a specific function and requiring balance for the proper functioning of the whole.

Dude, just stop. "She" isn't gonna fuck you.

Disease occurs when some crucial function is blocked, which can disturb the balance between the humours. Each humour – physical substances such as bile (or choler), black bile, phlegm, and blood – is distinguished by its determinate qualities (associated with the four elements) of either heat or cold, and either moisture or dryness. For example, blood, which is warm and moist, is produced by the liver; whereas, black bile is both cold and dry, and originates in the spleen. Losing the appropriate balance between such humours will produce a specific temperament, which can be diagnosed and treated according to which qualities dominate and the bodily origins of the relevant humours. Temperaments are conditions conceived as both something like personality and something like mood disorders, as well as bodily dispositions to particular illnesses. Particular temperaments are determined by the combinatorial possibilities of imbalanced elemental qualities (Galen enumerates eight in de Temperamentis), but the most famous are those associated with the dominance of a single humor: sanguine, phlegmatic, choleric, or melancholic. Treatment aims to bring the humours, and hence the qualities, back into balance, and can proceed in any number of ways – from diet, to changes of climate, to bloodletting – that will either eliminate superfluous humours, or introduce opposite qualities into the body. Almost all of the many later authors who considered physiological aspects of the emotions owe their basic framework to the Galenic and Stoic traditions.

Although the emotions as such were not a central topic for the Epicureans, the presentation of their views on pleasure and the good life through Diogenes Laertes, Lucretius, and even such critics as Cicero (De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum) were important enough to early modern philosophers that they deserve some mention here. Epicureans' treatment of specific emotions, such as the fear of death and the gods, or the desire for honor, typically strove to show how they are baseless and destructive of the good life. But such emotions rest on desires that are unnecessary, unnatural, or even empty. Since the only good is pleasure [hedone] and the absence of pain, and both pain and pleasure counted as pathe, the Epicureans did not dismiss passion as such from the good life.

Pleasures, however, come in many forms: short-term pleasures, such as slaking a thirst, are “kinetic,” yet it is “static” pleasures that yield the best cost-benefit ratio for the quantity of pleasure and pain over the course of a life. The highest form of static pleasure is the state of ataraxia, freedom from disturbance, trouble, or anxiety, which is the mental equivalent of bodily aponia, absence of pain. Mental ataraxia remains closely tied to aponia, since our mental attitude is largely focused on bodily experiences of pain and pleasure. But mental pleasure is not limited to current bodily experiences; for instance, much static pleasure can be derived by recalling or anticipating various kinetic pleasures. In this respect, the pleasures of the good life are not understood merely negatively.

In the seventeenth-century, Pierre Gassendi, and later Walter Charleton presented the Epicurean view of pleasure as an appealing alternative to Stoic austerity (Kraye 2003, 1293-8). Both, however, had to do some fancy footwork to reconcile the Epicurean denial of immortality with Christian doctrine and to overcome long-lasting prejudices about the hedonistic immorality of Epicureanism. But few others distinguished Epicureanism sharply from Stoicism. One hurdle to recognizing the distinctive character of Epicureanism was that ataraxia was often translated by the Latin tranquillitas, which was also used for the apatheia of the Stoics; then too, Pyrrhonian skeptics such as Sextus Empiricus identified ataraxia with detachment from belief. Still, many early modern philosophers endorsed a version of ‘tranquility’ that understood it to be a matter of long-lasting emotional satisfaction, achieved by fulfilling moderate desires, especially the desire for knowledge. In this respect, they owed a great deal to Epicureanism, even if few acknowledged the debt.

Augustine introduced many themes that were influential for later Christian writers, even as he borrowed from ancient theories such as neo-Platonism. He typically chooses the Latin passio as his translation of pathe, reserving “perturbations” for derogatory senses of pathe. For as he explains, it would be inappropriate to assign passio any particularly pejorative meaning. Passio was, after all, the term applied to the “Passion” of Christ, which was a kind of suffering, but hardly a vicious, or even morally neutral, kind. (Levi 1964, 14-15.) In general, Augustine did not disparage the emotions as such, despite an increasingly tragic view of the human condition over the course of his career.

Augustine argued – somewhat ironically – that the Stoic condemnation of the passions was more verbal than anything else, for everyone admits that passions can be good. Augustine's quarrel with the Stoic conception of virtue, vice, and the good life extended beyond terminology, however, for he took the anti-Pelagian stance that the good life is not a do-it-yourself project. The only true earthly happiness lies in the hope of salvation and the eternal life of the blessed, and that requires God's grace as a free gift. As such, the Stoic emphasis on self-sufficiency and the ideal of apatheia are wrong-headed from the start. Even unhappy passions such as longing, pain, guilt, fear and mourning, have enormous value for us, for “so long as we wear the infirmity of this life, we are rather worse men than better if we have none of these emotions at all” (City of God 14. 9). The most important emotion for the good life is love, and virtue is nothing other than the right kind of love, namely love of God.

Mate, who gives a shit. My entire message behind the post was more to shill Eckhart Tolle's book and to send goodwill to someone. I certainly would hope you don't believe every interaction with people is merely a call for attention. Get your head out of your ass and smell the flowers. World doesn't have to be as negative as you see it.

This isn't about some dumb bitch you faggot. This is about a vagina to put my dick inside of.

n yet another contrast to the Stoics, Augustine found the source of vice and sin in something we might consider internal to our (fallen) nature: namely, our free will, which together with memory and understanding make up the “trinity” of the human mind. Despite borrowing from Seneca, Augustine may have been the first thinker to treat the will [voluntas] as a distinct faculty, which is an essential part of the mind, yet can also oppose its reason. For this reason, Augustine could account for the possibility of akrasia quite handily, without having to import some blindsiding and alien notion of interfering passion. As a separate faculty, the will is active, identified as a “movement of the soul, under no compulsion, either toward getting or not losing something” (On the Two Souls, against the Manicheans 10.14). But on Augustine's view, the will simply incorporates the passions into its attractive, hedonistic operations, as we can see in his simplification of Cicero's classification:

Love which strains after the possession of the loved object is desire; and the love which possesses and enjoys that object is joy. The love that shuns what opposes it is fear, while the love that feels that opposition when it happens is grief (City of God 14.7).

The four basic kinds of passion are simply modifications of love, which is both a passion and a form of willing. The proper kind of love is also a virtue, indeed one of the three basic theological virtues, along with hope and faith. Augustine distinguished between love of an object for enjoyment (for its own sake) and love of an object for use, which makes the difference between virtuous and vicious loves. Since the only thing that is good for its own sake is God, only God is the proper object of love as enjoyment. All virtuous loves are secondary to this love: caritas, the will to unite with God. In contrast, misplaced love, particularly self-love, is a different species of passion, a will to the carnal, even a kind of lust (cupiditas, or concupiscentia). But Augustine admits links between the two kinds of love, noting that scripture often uses the same term indifferently (amor or dilectio) for both good and bad loves (City of God 14.7). Both show a strong dash of an erotic drive towards union, although union with quite different sorts of things. Augustine's neo-Platonic leanings may show here in the thought that what distinguishes caritas from vicious love is whether it is directed toward God or toward the transient. Still, what makes the difference between virtuous and vicious love is not an error of reason, but of will, especially when we turn the love owed to God towards ourselves.

Augustine did entertain sympathy for certain aspects of the ideal of “what the Greeks call apatheia, and what the Latins would call, if their language would allow them, impassibilitas,” calling it “obviously a good and most desirable quality” (City of God 14.9). At the same time, he denied that it was either possible or desirable for humans on earth and held that even the citizens of the city of God experience the full panoply of passions. But the value he assigned to the emotions may be largely instrumental, since even those “affections [that] are well regulated, and according to God's will” are “peculiar to this life, not to that future life we look for.” In contrast, “when there shall be no sin in a man, then there shall be this apatheia” (City of God, 14.9). Augustine understood apatheia, however, to mean only “a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb the mind.” Perfect happiness does not involve the absence of all passions:

I understand that your world revolves around pussy and how to get it but there are people that aren't as pathetic as you are. Stop projecting and get a life. I can't imagine bitching about someone spreading goodwill

It may, indeed, reasonably be maintained that the perfect blessedness we hope for shall be free from all sting of fear or sadness; but who that is not quite lost to truth would say that neither love nor joy shall be experienced there?”(City of God,14.9).

Indeed, the beatific vision pictures the saints as enjoying the unalloyed pleasures of fulfilled love, free from all those constraints necessary to keep earthly loves in line (The Literal Meaning of Genesis XII.26.54). In the ideal of the blessed life of the saved, Augustine introduces a new wrinkle in the old game of evaluating the nature and worth of the passions.

Perhaps the most recognizable point of reference, whether as model or a source of contention, for early modern philosophers was Aquinas. His treatment of the emotions appears mostly in the Summa Theologicae II-1.22-48, although relevant material can also be found in the ST I. 78.4 and I.80-81 and in de Veritate, q. 26. Aquinas himself assimilated many features of the accounts we've already seen in Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero and Augustine, as well as giving a distinctive spin to the notion of the passions, particularly to those “passions of the soul,” which are the emotions experienced by both humans and animals. These passions are acts, or movements, of the sensitive appetitive power, which are caused by external objects as apprehended by what Aquinas called the “estimative,” or “cogitative” power. Passions of the soul can also be identified with certain bodily changes, including contraction or expansion of the “spirits,” changes in the distribution of bodily temperature, and particularly alterations in the movements of the heart.

Who's this desperate cunt abusing copy and paste.... You need to fuck off!

Tits or GTFO timestamp or it doesn't count. The empathy of Yea Forums is not free.

In the broadest sense, something is a passion if it involves some sort of receptivity, as in sense-perception or understanding. But Aquinas took passions of the soul to qualify as passions in a stricter sense, involving change in the receptive subject (since receiving some X requires losing its contrary). In the strictest sense, passions involve change for the worse, which leads Aquinas to consider sorrow a more exemplary passion than joy. For these reasons and despite calling them passions of the soul, Aquinas held that passions belong to the soul-body composite, for a body is required for something to undergo change that can constitute corruption. Passions do indeed belong to the soul as well, but ‘accidentally,’ insofar as the soul informs, and is a cause and end of the body (ST II-1.22). Aquinas stressed in a number of places that God and angels have no passions, although they do perform acts of will (rational appetites) comparable to our passions in some respects. On the basis of the strict understanding of the passions, Aquinas could distinguish them both from the will, or rational appetitive faculty, and from any apprehensive faculty (perception or understanding), since neither undergoes change.

Passions are instead located in the sensitive appetitive faculty; this is a faculty that is passive, since it is moved by external causes (which are not themselves moved thereby), although it may itself also be a mover. Although they belong to an appetitive faculty, passions nonetheless are initiated by acts of an apprehensive faculty, the estimative or cogitative power. This faculty receives information about particulars. But it differs from the faculties of sense-perception insofar as it apprehends non-sensible properties, or intentiones, particularly those that have some value pertinent to the apprehending subject, such as the dangerousness of the wolf to a sheep, or the usefulness of straw to a nesting bird. Quite generally, the faculty presents sensible particulars as either good or evil. Although in animals this “estimative” power is shaped by instinct, and perhaps by experience, it is susceptible to reason in humans, so that Aquinas called it the “cogitative power” and even – somewhat oxymoronically – “particular reason.”

Still, he emphasized its corporeal nature, noting that “medical men assign a certain particular organ, namely the middle part of the head” to this faculty (ST I.78.4). Animal passions are determined by what is apprehended by the estimative power, and in the absence of any higher faculties that could overrule this power, inevitably produce behavior. But the human cogitative power is susceptible to reason, and thus so are human passions. For this reason, human passions are subject to moral evaluation; they are good if they are in accord with reason, and are thus “moderate,” evil if they flout it, or are excessive.

Despite his contention that in the strictest sense of the term, passions involve a change for the worse, Aquinas did not think we are necessarily worse off for being passionate creatures. Indeed, Aquinas adopts a broadly teleological framework to explain the passions, supposing that they exist to contribute to proper animal functioning: “as nature does not fail in necessary things, there must needs be as many actions of the sensitive soul as may suffice for the life of a perfect animal” (ST I. 78.4) – that is, as will allow the animal to survive and flourish. Appetites work hand in hand with apprehensive and motive faculties, so that an animal can move around the world, seeking out what is good for it, while shunning what is bad. Each has its particular functional role to play in the larger teleological picture, and we can see why Aquinas stressed that the passions are appetites, or more broadly movements (thereby differing from, e.g., Albertus Magnus, who took passions to be qualities, see Knuuttila 2004, 248).

But his teleological framework is not restricted simply to animal ends, or ends of the soul-body composite. For instance, sorrow involves a bodily change for the worse, depressing the spirits and the movements of the heart, prompting uncomfortable shifts in body temperature, and generally impairing the functioning of the body. Despite its costs for the embodied creature, sorrow can nevertheless be quite a good thing, both because it motivates us to avoid sin, and because it is more virtuous to feel sorrow in the face of evil than not. Again, though, Aquinas adopted a basically Aristotelean position: moderate passions are good and functional, but not so excessive passions. Fear and sorrow controlled by reason serve several different ends, but excessive fear or sorrow can be disabling. In general, Aquinas's conception of the passions is characterized by their place within an economy of receptive apprehensions, motivated actions, and the fulfillment of ends. Many of his analyses of individual passions look from their nature to their causes (including their objects), and thence to their effects – and in the case of sorrow to its remedies. Although he did not deny they exist, Aquinas does not seem much interested in the affective, or phenomenological aspects of emotions (see Knuuttila 2004, 249-52)

Yeah I just wanted to settle down with my last one but she left me because she thought we'd get divorced. And she's a christfag

Along with his teleological framework, Aquinas adopted a fairly intricate and highly principled classificatory scheme. The most important division is that between concupiscible and irascible passions. This distinction predates Aquinas by a good while – thought to stem from Plato's Timaeus, it was suggested by Aristotle, used by Cicero, and given a physiological grounding by Galen – but it came to be most closely associated with Aquinas. On his reckoning, the important distinction arises from a difference in objects: the concupiscible passions are directed at good or evil simpliciter, while the irascible passions are directed to good or evil considered as arduous. The irascible passions are thus parasitic on the concupiscible, and come into play only when there seems to be some impediment to the good or evil for which we feel concupiscible passions of love or hatred. As did Plato before him, Aquinas considered such distinctions to be necessary to account for the psychic complexity and conflict that we often experience.

Aquinas borrowed yet other principles from the Aristotelean classification of physical motions to produce a taxonomy of eleven basic kinds of passions. Crossing good and evil with three different kinds of motion describing the movement of the appetite produces six concupiscible passions: love [amor] and hate [odium]; desire [desiderium, concupiscentia] and aversion [fuga]; joy [delectatio, or its internal sub-species, gaudium] and pain [dolor and for internal pain, tristitia]. The specific irascible passions are produced by multiplying the nature of their objects with the direction of the motions with respect to those objects to produce the four passions of hope [spes] and desperation [desperatio], fear [timor] and daring [audacia]. To these, Aquinas added the rather special case of anger [ira], which presupposes a concupiscible passion of pain, and is a resolute appetite to remove the present source of pain. Unlike Aristotle, Aquinas denied that anger has a contrary. Although the results might seem a bit baroque, Aquinas obviously put great stock into his taxonomy, considering it superior to both Augustine's reduction of passions to love and Cicero's scheme of four primary passions (although he goes to some pains to interpret each view in a sympathetic way).

Aquinas's evaluation of the emotions was a bit mixed. On the one hand, moderate passions serve the ends of human and animal life. Indeed they help constitute the ends of our lives, since the greatest of human goods, happiness, involves pleasure. On the other hand, Aquinas took passions in the strict sense to involve change for the worse, and more generally, ranked passions with the passive and not fully actualized entities existing on the lower, degraded rungs of his ontological ladder. This is not merely a matter of ontological imperfection. Aquinas stressed that God and the angels have no passions; it is part of their happy condition that their only appetites are the active, rational volitions that belong to their very being.

Still, those acts of will are analogous to many of our emotions, e.g., love and anger, however much Aquinas balked at calling them ‘passions.’ He even insisted on occasion that it is appropriate to give a rational appetite and a passion the same name (e.g., ‘love’) on the grounds that they have similar “movements.” So he does seem to have recognized intellectual emotion or affect of some sort more “perfect” than our passions. Moreover, passions proper need not arise only by way of completely external causes; they can arise through volitions, when the volition produces a bodily effect, as when the intellect's raising something for consideration under a universal prompts a particular appearance in the imagination (see de Veritate q.26). Although Aquinas did not make much out of these cases, they set an important precedent for future discussions.

Kill yourself faggot

Compared to Aquinas, the writers of Florentine humanism considered the emotions only unsystematically. Marcilio Ficino and Giovanni Pico della Mirandola revitalized neo-Platonic approaches to the emotions, especially through their discussions of “Platonic love.” The Prince and Discourses of Niccoló Machiavelli take a different approach in considering how to characterize humans, particularly geographically specific groups of humans, in terms of their emotional dispositions and the patterns of behavior so motivated. Since he understood actions to be the outcomes of emotions, Machiavelli's advice to political leaders included a great deal of material on how to manipulate the passions of subjects to keep public order. One technique is to adopt a public persona that can project emotional and character traits, which may be quite different from the ruler's true private passions.

Throughout, Machiavelli stressed that fear provides a particularly reliable motivation, and envy a well-nigh universal one. But for all his seemingly realpolitik public psychology, Machiavelli gave an important, and normatively loaded, role to what he called “glory” [gloria]. Glory may not itself be an emotion – Machiavelli treated it as an achievement at which a ruler should aim – but the desire for something like glory, e.g., ambition, or the emotion for honor, was to become an important element in the list of emotions recognized by figures from Montaigne to Hobbes.

Another figure with humanist connections was the lesser-known writer on the emotions Juan Luis Vives. Book Three of his tome De Anima et Vita (1538) treats psychology and education, and includes a seminal discussion of the emotions, combining Galenist medicine with observational material, particularly to show how the humour-laden temperaments can be modified by such features as age, health, climate and circumstance, as well as by thought, judgment and will (see Guerlac 1998). Although he held that uncontrolled emotions can be morally and cognitively disruptive, Vives did not suppose all emotions to be so disruptive, and introduced vocabulary to distinguish such emotions from violent passions. In so doing, he popularized the use of ‘affectus’ or ‘affectiones,’ which he understood most broadly as any modification (or accident), more narrowly as an emotion in general, and in the narrowest sense as a gentle emotion (see Gardiner 1970, 123). Other authors, however, continued to use ‘passion’ and ‘affection’ interchangeably, as did Thomas Wright in The Passions of the Mind in General (1601).

How's aids, faggot?

Despite evaluating it differently, Vives shared the Stoic view connecting emotions and cognition. Vives took emotions to arise out of judgments of good and evil. These judgments may not be reasoned or deliberative, but he seemed to think that some judgment-like character had to be attributed to emotions to explain exactly how they came to be directed at objects. In this, he took issue with Aquinas, who took differences in “formal” objects and causes to suffice for distinguishing powers of the soul. But Vives generally refused to draw sharp distinctions between the various powers and faculties of the soul.

Instead, he redrew Aquinas's classification of the emotions, producing a threefold distinction of emotions directed at good, emotions directed at, or concerned with evil [ad malum], and those that act to combat evil (contra malum). This does not eliminate the contrast between concupiscible and the irascible passions, but it does produce a different taxonomy: there are affects directed at good simpliciter (liking, love, reverence), as well as at present good (delight), and at future good (desire, hope). There are affects concerned with evil per se (e.g., dislike, hate), and specifically with present evil (grief) or future evil (fear). There are also affects combating present evil (anger, indignation) and future evil (faith, daring). Moreover, emotions could interact, whether by combining, conflicting, diminishing, or strengthening each other to produce whole trains of emotions, or by falling into a fourth category of “mixed” emotions, compounded out of simpler ones (see Gardiner 1970, 129-130).

In keeping with his medical interests and reliance on Galenist psycho-physiology, Vives also placed a good deal of emphasis on the physiological aspects of emotions. However, unlike many other Renaissance Galenists, Vives did not assign emotions specifically to the heart, but instead emphasized the interplay between emotions, judgments of good and evil, and bodily states. Despite these connections, Vives took it that the proper way to manage and control the affects is by invoking other affects. These views, rather than his peculiar taxonomies, mark his importance for later authors.

Michel de Montaigne's Essais are heavily indebted to previous accounts of the emotions and their value. But it is hard to say where exactly Montaigne stood on them. The Essais are far from being a systematic work of philosophy, they are shot through with irony, and they may well reflect Montaigne's changing views over the years. Nonetheless, certain themes emerge, particularly after the case made for Pyrrhonian skepticism in the “Apology for Raimond Sebond.” There and elsewhere, skeptical means serve roughly Stoic ends. Montaigne spoke approvingly of how his brand of skepticism leads to a kind of “ataraxy:”

a peaceful and sedate condition of life, exempt from the agitations we receive through the impressions of the opinion and knowledge we think we have of things. Whence are born fear, avarice, envy, immoderate desires, ambition, pride, superstition, love of novelty, rebellion, disobedience, obstinancy and most bodily ills (“Apology for Raymond Sebond,” Montaigne 1958, 372).

For all this condemnation of a whole host of passions, however, Montaigne often condemned the “harshness” of the Stoics with equal vehemence. And throughout the Essais, he shows a keen interest in the affective components of education and intellectual activity, taking pleasant emotions, particularly “cheerfulness” [esjouissance] to be desirable both in intellectual pursuits and as their achievement. Yet it would be hard to attribute even a eudaimonistic position akin to Aristotle's to the writer who in “On Moderation” advised moderation even in pursuit of virtue and moderation.

Montaigne's notion of cheerfulness seems to go hand in hand with the sort of peaceful, retiring life he favored. He was particularly hard on emotions that would disrupt such a life, producing a number of diatribes (e.g., “On Glory”) against the desire for glory, reputation, or honor. In contrast to Machiavelli, Montaigne conceived of glory more as a matter of recognition or reputation than as a normatively inflected achievement. It is transient and irrational, and the desire for it is an “illusion,” although a universal one, tempting even and especially to those who have succeeded in controlling their other passions. With his tongue firmly in his cheek, Montaigne remarked on how often those who have written books despising glory still want the glory of having written the books (“Of not Communicating one's Glory,” Montaigne 1958, 187). (The irony of this criticism is only increased by its allusion to Cicero, who serves as both example of the desire and source for the comment, see Pro Archia XI,16.)

In place of any general theory, Montaigne's essays draw from various sources to present a plethora of anecdotal accounts, showing everything from the effects emotions may have on reason and judgment, to their bodily effects, to the continuity between human and animal emotions. But what Montaigne seems most bent on is the sheer diversity of the passions we experience, and in particular, what he called their “inconstancy” – the fleeting and often conflicting nature of the emotions an individual may experience on various occasions (or even on one) (“How we Cry and Laugh for the Same Thing,” Montaigne 1958, 173). The same can be said for our judgment; changes of perspective can generate new and contrasting passions and concomitant judgments (Montaigne 1958, 174).

The relativity of judgment is an old Pyrrhonist theme, used to generate the problem of the criterion (by, e.g., Sextus Empiricus). Montaigne's associate and follower, Pierre Charron uses the relativity of passions to much the same end in his De la Sagesse (1601). Montaigne, however, applied this chestnut here specifically to the individual in order to draw a psychological moral: “… we are wrong to compose a continuous body out of all this succession of feelings.” (“How we Cry and Laugh for the Same Thing,” Montaigne 1958, 174), for “we are all patchwork, and … shapeless and diverse in composition” (“Of the Inconsistency of our Actions,” Montaigne 1958, 244).

May i see your boobs?

Attached: F97FFC09-F5B0-4E33-8B21-AF94A81B7251.jpg (1242x1883, 467K)

But this is not merely patchwork inconstancy. Montaigne also contrasted what is external with a kind of interiority that seems associated with the true self. Intense emotions may not have outward expressions, and perturbations that remain superficial do not touch the true inner core. So too, virtuous actions can have vicious motivations, and vice-versa. But even as Montaigne used this contrast, he played with it, telling us that because “a sound intellect will refuse to judge men simply by their outward actions, we must probe the inside and discover what springs set men in motion,” before adding “but since this is an arduous and hazardous undertaking, I wish fewer people would meddle with it” (“Of the Inconsistency of our Actions,” Montaigne 1958, 244). Difficult though it may be to reach the “inside” directly, we should also note that the interior and exterior are intertwined, a point Montaigne uses in discussing “diversion,” the transformation of painful emotions into pleasanter ones (“Of Diversion”).

Diversion can be accomplished simply through the outer expressions of emotion by others. This is one reason why rhetoric can be an effective diversion (much better than argument); indeed, it can change even the passions of the speaker, as outward expression shapes inward affect (Montaigne 1958, 635). It is fortunate that we are susceptible to expressions of emotion, since painful passions are much easier to divert than to subdue. By using diversion to increase cheerfulness, we turn the inconstancy of our emotional natures to our benefit. Although it may be going too far to say that Montaigne celebrated such inconstancy, he did seem to have seen it as a brute and interesting feature of human (and animal) life. Nor did he feel any need to propose an account of the structure of the soul that will impose a neat taxonomy on the messy character of our emotions to explain away their prima facie inconstancy and conflict.

sad nibba hours
well i fucked over my mate, got with his ex, fucked up two friendships, plus i'm lowkey paranoid now that all my friends hate me
life's good

Attached: 56337193_2724892517526145_7112631662273363968_n.jpg (720x572, 23K)

Montaigne's work was contemporaneous with the revival movement that came to be known as neo-Stoicism, which adopted ancient (particularly Roman) Stoicism to Christian theology and contemporary concerns. Perhaps the most famous neo-Stoic, one admired greatly by Montaigne, was Justus Lipsius, who espoused neo-Stoic doctrines in both ethics and political works, as well as in other areas of philosophy. His most popular book was On Constancy in Times of Public Troubles [De Constantia in publicis malis], often shortened to On Constancy, first published in 1584, before going through more than 80 editions and translations over the next two centuries. Lipsius adopted a typically Stoic approach to the passions and “affects” [adfectus], identifying them as false opinions that we “must never stop attempting to conquer” (On Constancy 1.2). The desirable state is “constancy,” internal peace and absence of conflict. Lipsius laid particular stress on the role of constancy during times of tumultuous civic and religious change, something he experienced in spades during the course of his career.

Perhaps for this reason, he included among the passions to be conquered such “lures” as deception [simulatio], patriotism, and pity [miseratio] for the misfortunes of others. The goal, however, seems to be emotional detachment, not practical disengagement from public affairs. As a companion piece to On Constancy, Lipsius wrote Six Books on Politics or Civil Doctrine [Politicorum sive Civilis doctrinae libri sex] (1589). Whereas the “Letter to the Reader” of the earlier book directed it at the citizenry who endure turmoil, the latter aimed to instruct “those who rule how to govern.” Self-government still plays a crucial role in government, though, and Lipsius recommends a course in Stoic ethics as the best corrective for bad leadership (see Papy 2004). Lipsius's work was thus part of the burgeoning early modern tendency to locate the passions within issues of command and government.

Cheek to jowl with the revival of ancient philosophies were continuing Scholastic traditions that undertook to treat the emotions systematically. Perhaps the most distinctive and influential writer of this kind was Francesco Suarez, whose compendious works included discussions of the emotions in V.iv-vi of his posthumously published Tractatus de Anima (1621), and a commentary on the emotional theory of Aquinas's Summa in IV, disputations 1 of his Tractatus quinque ad Primam Secundae D. Thomae Aquinatis. Suarez was no slavish follower of Aquinas, however. He attacked the division between concupiscible and irascible passions, as resting merely on a “conceptual distinction,” rather than marking genuinely different powers and faculties in the soul. For this reason, he took Aquinas's classification of the emotions into eleven basic kinds to be unfounded, and instead considered several alternate principles of distinction producing radically different classifications, one of which consists merely of six contrasting emotions.

Ultimately, however, Suarez considers there to be no more than a conceptual distinction between any passion and any other passion. Suarez's position may be extreme, and he himself allows that Aquinas's distinctions may be heuristically useful, but his criticisms of the proliferation of distinct powers in the soul and his drive to unify the account of the soul on the basis of its “intertwining” powers struck a chord with many. Certainly the distinction between the concupiscible and the irascible became less of an article of faith, abandoned even by such synthesizing works as the Summa philosophiae quadripartita (1609) of Eustace of St. Paul (King 2002, 244, 256) – a work that served as one of Descartes's main sources on scholasticism.

Aristotle's preferred term for the emotions was pathos [pl. pathe], which makes the emotions largely passive states, located within a general metaphysical landscape contrasting active and passive, form and matter, and actuality and potentiality. The pathe are first and foremost responses found in the embodied animal to the outside world, very much like perceptions. They can thus be associated broadly with matter insofar as they represent capacities or potentialities that need to be actualized by external causes, which also explains how they are directed at objects. Of course, the pathe are not pure potentialities. They are actualized in the experience of an occurrent emotion, and even the mere capacity to experience pathe requires a determinate form, a soul. Moreover, the pathe have close connections to action, and Aristotle treated them as movements of a sort. For all these reasons, the pathe can be attributed to the soul insofar as the soul informs a body. Yet since their causes lie outside of the animal who experiences them, the question arises whether and to what extent we can control them.

That is a question addressed in several different ways by the most important Aristotelean texts on the pathe available to later ancient and medieval authors: the Nicomachean Ethics and Rhetoric. Each work presents lists of emotions, although where the Nichomachean Ethics serves up 11, the Rhetoric dishes out a full 14. They differ too in their aims and tenor: the Nichomachean Ethics is concerned with the place of the pathe within the economy of acting according to our habits and desires as moderated by reason, whereas the Rhetoric concerns the arousal and management of pathe in the context of producing persuasion. In both cases, however, the pathe are treated as susceptible to rational influence and voluntary action, although not directly subject to choice.

The Nichomachean Ethics characterizes pathe as the “feelings accompanied by pleasure or pain,” listing appetite, anger, fear, confidence, envy, joy, love, hatred, longing, emulation, and pity as examples (1105b21). Nonetheless, it will be easiest, as well as consistent with the bulk of Aristotle's analyses, to treat pathos as more or less equivalent to desire, or appetite in the broad sense. (The Rhetoric makes the identification explicit, e.g., at 1378a31. But just to keep things interesting, De Anima, treats the pathe, along with “desire” and “wish,” as a species of appetite at 414b3). The pathe form one of the three main categories found in the soul, distinguished from faculties, on the one hand, and states [hexeis], on the other. They are, however, very closely associated with the latter. States constitute the virtues [arete] or vices of the non-rational part of the soul, which can, however, either conform to or violate right reason

They do so through their connections with actions. The pathe, along with the appetites, motivate action (even to the point of provoking bodily changes such as internal temperature, color and expression). The dispositions to feel them in certain ways are, in turn, shaped by our habits of action, and states may be understood as the dispositions to feel particular kinds of pathe on certain occasions. States are, in fact, “the things in virtue of which we stand well or badly with reference to the passions [pathe]” (1105b26).

The pathe are not themselves virtues or vices. But states are, and that means that the pathe are morally significant. More generally, because emotional experience is intrinsic to any life, any account of the good life must give them their due. Now, certain pathe (spite, envy) are always bad. But despite characterizing the human good as a life exercising “activity of the soul in conformity with excellence [or virtue]” (1098a16), and despite counting reason (but not feeling pathe) as a distinctively human activity, Aristotle took the excellence of the excellent human to consist partly in experiencing pathe in the right way, to the right extent, and on the right occasions.

Indeed, the cultivation of character is largely a matter of cultivating the disposition for appropriate experience of the pathe, which is as important as developing our abilities for deliberative reason. The appropriate emotional dispositions may, in fact, be even more crucial to the good life, since our capacity to feel the passions seems intrinsic, while our ability to reason develops with maturity and can be crucially affected by our emotional dispositions. In any case, the truly excellent person will not only reason well about what to do in particular situations, but will feel the appropriate desires and pathe in those situations. For this reason, the intellectual virtue for deliberating about what to do, phronesis, is distinguished from the other practical intellectual virtues of techne in part by its involvement with pathe.

This comfortable relation between the emotions and reason, however, hits some snags when Aristotle turned to the distinctive ways in which we can fail to act well. For example, the akratic, or weak-willed person, recognizes what should be done without actually doing it. Aristotle's solution to this puzzling, if common, phenomenon, was to lay the blame at the feet of some pathos, particularly the pathe of either anger or pleasure. Here these pathe might seem to oppose reason. Aristotle, however, appears to have thought of them more as exercising a cognitive interference that disrupts our completion of the practical syllogism than as an external force overturning our otherwise smoothly operating reason. (For this reason, the pathe seem to have cognitive aspects themselves; see Kraut 2005). In contrast, the enkratic person feels the same disruptive pathos, but does not give way to them in action. The enkratic is thus superior to the akratic, but still not as admirable as the person who feels the pathe as the virtuous person would, that is, in accord with the dictates of right reason. So Aristotle's ethical works treat the pathe both as susceptible to reason and as integral to the good life, even as they allow that the emotions can impair our reason.

The risk of emotional disruption of our reason and the management of the emotions are topics explored much further in the Rhetoric. That Aristotle would even consider the topic is noteworthy, for it suggests that techniques for producing belief, among which appeals to emotion are prominent, need not be relegated to sophistry, but make a proper subject for philosophy. Things seem a bit less rosy, however, when we turn to the three distinct sources of persuasion Aristotle admitted: trust in the character of the speaker, the passions of the audience, and the “proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech [logos] itself” (1356a4). The first and last seem sources that are themselves reasons – either reasons for holding it probable that the speaker's conclusions are true, or reasons for the conclusion itself. But arousing the audience's passions seems another matter altogether.

feels bad man

Indeed, Aristotle here characterized the pathe as “all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgments, and that are also attended by pain and pleasure” (1378a21), for which he produces the example of anger, exactly the interfering pathos held responsible for any cases of akrasia. But despite the acknowledged risk that the pathe can be used for sophistic ends, warping our beliefs and decisions and producing commitments on indefensible grounds, Aristotle did not hold that all emotional appeals must do so. The problem with sophistic rhetoric is that it makes its emotional pitch in ways independent of the subject under discussion, perhaps even distracting from the subject at hand (e.g., by invoking anger at Al Qaeda, while considering the merits of invading Iraq). Presumably, however, a particular subject may have characteristics that themselves provoke certain emotions, indeed that should provoke certain emotions, and appropriate rhetoric will highlight those features without ever leaving the subject at hand. In this respect, the arousing of emotions might even count as a kind of salience argument for the beliefs so produced (e.g., anger at particular outrageous events can serve as a reason for believing that a politician should be impeached).

More generally, the pathe pervade our lives; our judgments are always affected by our emotions and moods, not just in perverse and pernicious cases. In this respect, any rhetorician attempting to produce belief must take account of the emotional state of her audience. This is true whatever her motives might be. Aristotle considered the true to be inherently, but not overridingly persuasive, and so even the rhetorician most sincerely devoted to the truth will need to consider how to manage the emotions of her audience so that it will be amenable to belief in truth. Doing so will require not only some assessment of the character of the audience, but also a great deal of insight into the nature and causes of the pathe, and Aristotle devoted a great deal of Book II of the Rhetoric to a kind of taxonomy and physiognomy of the emotions (thereby inaugurating what was to become a popular sport).

Aristotle's list is copious, listing some 14 passions. Each receives an analysis of its causes (qualities) and objects (persons) – which together provide a complex intentional content for the emotion. Aristotle also described the mental conditions under which a pathos is felt, that is the relations between the person feeling it and that which provides its content. But it is an odd list, comprising anger, calm, friendship, enmity, fear, confidence, shame, shamelessness, kindness, unkindness, pity, indignation, envy, and emulation. Presumably, Aristotle thought that these were the pathe most likely to be of use to the rhetorician (even if he ought not raise envy or shamelessness in his audience), but there seems little other rhyme or reason to the selection, and no reason to think that it is comprehensive (especially since it excludes pathe enumerated in the Nicomachean Ethics). One notable organizing feature is Aristotle's assumption that the pathe fall into contrasting pairs, although it may be a bit of a stretch to see the contrast between, e.g., envy and emulation, or to take certain candidates, e.g., calm, as a full-fledged pathe. Also interesting is Aristotle's discussion of how the general psychology of the emotions will map onto different types of character, ages, and fortunes, again a topic he might have considered particularly useful for the rhetorician.

Better now than later. When me and my girl. Of 5 years broke up it was pretty shitty.
Wasn't super sad. Just felt kinda empty. Like a missing part.

So Aristotle's assessment of the pathe is mixed: they can be cultivated by reason and figure in the good life; they can also disrupt our reason and action, and be used for nefarious ends. Indeed, by rendering our judgments unstable and prone to conflict, the emotions may pose a basic threat to human social life. But whether happy or dangerous, Aristotle certainly thought that the emotions are a fixture of human life that cannot be ignored. Ethics cultivates them in developing character; rhetoric manages them to produce belief. To these techniques, we might also add the psychological discipline accomplished by poetry, particularly tragedy.

The notion of katharsis, or “discharge” of the unpleasant emotions of pity and fear may be the most famous part of Aristotle's Poetics, although the text mentions it only in passing. It did not, in fact, have much influence on literature and aesthetic theory through the seventeenth century (although the Poetics was an important model in other respects, especially for considering how emotional responses could be directed at different kinds of characters). However, starting in the eighteenth century, the notion of katharsis gained ground, particularly since it addressed a question of enormous importance to 18th century aesthetics, namely how something like tragedy, which would seem to revolve around situations invoking unpleasant emotions, can nonetheless be enjoyable. The notion of katharsis at least hints at the complex and multivalent emotional states that would be further analyzed by later theorists such as Hume.

Compared with Aristotle's moderation, the Stoics seem pretty intolerant of the pathe, stressing their cognitive, eudaimonistic, and moral failings, while recommending their elimination. The Stoic evaluation of the passions was extremely influential – and contentious – for later authors, particularly among the seventeenth-century neo-Stoics, as well as among those authors interested in defending the value of the passions. Stoicism's thoroughgoing naturalism also made it a force to be reckoned with for cutting-edge 17th century philosophers. Since Stoic doctrines were largely transmitted to early modern philosophers through the writings of Cicero and Seneca, it is mainly the views current in late, Roman stoicism that matter for our purposes. But these sources sometimes mixed up specifically Stoic doctrines with views taken from other schools, particularly with skepticism in Cicero's De Finibus bonorum et malorum.

We're having a legit thread here that I'm interested in and this guy is posting a book.

Attached: 1550371271911.jpg (500x364, 25K)

my girlfriend of 6 years moved away almost 2 years ago. i still think about her and miss her every day even though we have both moved on.

Attached: ikiru1-1472070564-726x388.jpg (726x388, 200K)

Like Aristotle, the Stoics also spoke of pathe and located them within the passive, material element of the universe. This feature of the concept was emphasized by Cicero, who in “teaching philosophy to speak Latin,” considered how to translate the Greek term pathos:

I might have rendered this literally, styled them ‘diseases,’ but the word ‘disease’ would not suit all instances; for example, no one speaks of pity, nor yet anger, as a disease, though the Greeks term these pathos. Let us then accept the word ‘emotion’ [perturbatio] the very sound of which seems to denote something vicious and these emotions are not excited by any natural influence.” (De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum 255)

then get out

he was just using you for sex but poking holes in condoms? this doesn't make sense

Following Cicero, Roman Stoics frequently translated pathos as perturbatio, which came to have a particularly negative ring. Seneca used affectus, while others preferred passio, which explicitly connected the emotions with ‘undergoing,’ or ‘suffering’ (Levi 1964, 14-5, also Meyer 2000, 60). All of these translations, however, emphasized passivity, particularly the psychological passivity of the emotions and the sense in which they are out of our voluntary control, and indeed not a proper part of ourselves.

I know this feeling. But it goes both way for my past relationship. We both still love each other and neither of us wanted it to end. But she had a void in her that she couldn't figure out. And honestly, I don't know what to do to help her. First real love of course. Still stuck in my head that it is too. But I don't want to ghost because that doesn't get us anywhere.

In its most austere form (which probably borrowed greatly from the Cynics, and came to be associated with Cynicism), Stoic ethics identifies the good life with virtue and both the good life and virtue with self-sufficiency, i.e., that which is intrinsically good, proper to us and fully within our control. The passions, however, are responses to external events, outside of our control, and so antithetical to virtue and happiness. To be prey to the passions is to violate the basic outlines of our nature – indeed of the rational shape of nature as a whole, to which we should submit as law and fate. Such is the lot of most of us, which on Stoic reckoning makes us thoroughly and equally vicious, although for reasons outside of our control. A genuine sage, however, would achieve a state of apatheia, or what Cicero calls tranquillitas, the absence of alien pathe. That state is the virtue and good life to which we all aspire, although only the sage achieves it, and sages are (at best) few and far between.

Kija?

youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

>6 years and wasn't married yet

Hopefully you weren't surprised.

Used it twice, but that's what I'd expect from your type. Nice break of character too, kek.

Not OP, but looks like another Captain Autistco has joined the fray.

Sorry I ruffled your feathers.

yeah there are only three people on Yea Forums.
wat a fucking fag..........