Fuck you 9am here, go fuck yourself amerifat

>>28438423
What a stupid fucking concept. It's basically just acknowledging that you can never have a bowl that is entirely gold, and you can only afford to fill up a few cracks. You will never be gold.

>>28438456
Plen.

>>28438423

what an innovative way of using up all this gold i have lying around

>>28438456
I think its more like OP thinks hes a beautiful piece of art repaired with gold when he's really just a pile of shattered ceramic

>>28438441
>not being american

>>28438423

I wish you health and good fortune in your endeavors, OP

>>28438456
A pure gold bowl is a lot more boring

>>28438456
>You will never be gold.
You can function without being entirely made of gold. The repairs both create more value, and recreate function.

>>28438423
'Hurr if I arbitrarily define beauty as that which most people consider ugliness, then it magically means that "objective ugliness" > "objective prettiness", and totally doesn't mean that I'm just fucking up with definitions like a retard so to make dumbasses and failures in life happy for once by telling them that there's "beauty" in their being losers.'

Sometimes I hate asians.

>>28438441
Odakle si rodjace

>>28438456
I think a monochromatic bowl would be uglier

>>28438501
Unlike NEETS they don't mean broken because you're a social anxious loser, they mean broken because you experienced strife and life changing situations who made you who you were, like poverty, or death.

>>28438501
Or I should rather say buddhists, because it's obviously a buddhist concept. 'A broken thing is prettier because I say so, and you gotta UNDERSTAND it no less!' How fucking full of yourself can you be.

>All these salty losers arguing against their perception of the analogy and not appropriating that it's a dope-ass bowl

>>28438543
It's prettier because the clay has been augmented with gold you git,

>>28438531
Then they should have said that CHANGE makes things better -- which is admittedly true -- and not their *being broken*. By choosing 'broken' over 'changed', they arbitrarily narrowed an admittedly true relationship so just to pull a retarded, empathetic taoist 'bad > good'.

Think properly for a moment before apologizing a stupid concept.

>>28438423
I like this post because I have the means and skills to do it, I've just never thought to do it. Thanks, friend.

>>28438501
>"objective ugliness" > "objective prettiness"
There is no objectivity to beauty.

>>28438565
Except that's not the fucking picture said. It explicitly says 'for having been broken', not 'for having been repaired with gold of all things'.

Apparently the picture is contradictory, it wanted to boost its superficial plausibility of '...look, it's repairing with gold we're talking about', while on the explicit level making no mention of gold. Literally 'dogs are useful, therefore all animals are useful'.

All Buddhist cliches are as incoherent as that... The whole philosophy is logical garbage.

>>28438622
WOW YOU UNDERSTOOD THE FUCKING POINT OF MY POST. That that picture arbitrarily pulled out of its ass that brokenness makes you prettier.

For fuck's, Buddhists are literal 80-IQ idiots. I'm out of this thread.

>>28438579
>>Think properly for a moment before apologizing a stupid concept.

Except that "bad > good", as if there were any definitive bad or good, is not the concept and you're too busy being angry and narrow-minded to realize that.

The idea is that something that has been broken can be repaired and that the repaired item is more beautiful and interesting than it was before it was ever broken.

Ever hear of the old cliche that "whatever doesn't kill you, makes you stronger?"

>>28438644
Still, >inb4 you spout some irrelevant 'But brokenness is subjective!'

Exactly. That makes it even more retarded; that not only do they meaninglessly posit that 'broken > proper', they even don't posit that arbitrary relationship about objective things in the first place. Not only are they wrong, they're wrong on two different layers.

>>28438706
>Still, >inb4 you spout some irrelevant 'But brokenness is subjective!'

Holy shit, that actually happened! >>28438675


And as for the second (or God-knows-which) error in your post, that of broken/changed, see >>28438579.


I'm willing to talk at idiots, but not at idiots who don't even read the thread.

>>28438629
Shit, why you mad tho? Not to mention you're completely wrong.
>on the explicit level making no mention of gold
>the art of repairing pottery with gold
>kintsukuroi literally means "golden repair" in Japanese
What makes you think some Japanese artisan and his patron would still find the pottery beautiful if it was repaired with dried shit?

>>28438762
>why you mad tho?

Because that image has the ratio of Wrong per Word of about fucking 1/3, and none of you drones sharing it on Facebook ever noticed any of it.

>actually attempting to imply that the image's message incorporates factors (such as the example being filled with gold) beyond that which follows AFTER THE FUCKING WORDS 'THE UNDERSTANDING THAT...'

Holy shit.

>>28438726
You sound like an angry child. Nowhere in my post did I say that "brokenness is subjective." The concept of good and bad are subjective though. A broken object that can be repaired is not inherently bad. It is only bad if you cannot find the use for it again and repair it.

"Changed," as vague as you put that, does not necessarily make something better. You can burn down a house, it is changed, but not for the better. Rebuilding upon the ashes, fixing what has been broken, is something great.

>>28438588

How does one go about this? I broke my sake pitcher recently and would love to fix it this way.

>>28438629
your philosophy is garbage mate.

>>28438823
So you're mad cuz some roastie slut shared this image on facebook and of course a real intellectual like yourself could never agree with a promiscuous whore about /anything/ so you've planted yourself in complete ideological opposition and refuse to budge no matter how much of a foolish sperg it makes you seem? Ok, but I hope you realize that trying to quantify "Wrong per Word" is more autistic than drawing SonicxPokemon scat porn, and makes a ton of bogus assumptions about the objective nature of truth that a "philosopher" like yourself should know better then to assume without proof.
Not to mention the piece /is/ more beautiful for being broken because being broken allows it be repaired with gold, making it more valuable and shiny and aesthetic and whatnot. It's not a hard concept to grasp.

>>28438762
>why you mad tho
>>28438854
>You sound like an angry child.

I know Buddhists are dogmatically required to try to derail the discussion by pointing out to irrelevancies like that. Spare yourself the effort.

>Nowhere in my post did I say that "brokenness is subjective." The concept of good and bad are subjective though. A broken object that can be repaired is not inherently bad.

Even if we contrivedly accept that 'broken != bad' as though the word didn't have universal negative connotations, this would take away none of the arbitrariness of 'having been broken makes it prettier'. And if you say -- which you probably would, knowing your propensity for unrelated remarks -- that the picture obviously meant that the 'makes' there is a mental shortcut, and that obviously 'presents an opportunity to make it prettier' was meant, then it would be a fucking non-insight. 'Lol things can always be made better than they were when they break.' Obviously that would be a worthless statement, so instead the picture's point was to through layers of logical and definitional fuckups plant the crucial, populist idea, 'bad = good' (with the demotivational motivation being, 'love yourself as you are', 'chill', and eventually 'don't offend the rest of us with your ambition').

>Changed," as vague as you put that, does not necessarily make something better.

I was about to point out that I said 'admittedly' before saying that change is good, but then I noticed that you didn't even apply ceteris paribus to it. So congratulations, another instance of a Buddhist being not singly, but doubly wrong.

I feel dirty for trying to talk some structure and sense into Buddhists. Go read a PROPER book for once.

>>28438922
'no'

>>28438977
>the piece /is/ more [subjective positive term] for being broken because being broken allows it be repaired with gold, making it more [subjective positive term] and [...] [subjective positive term]

Nice circular reasoning. Relatively obscured, making it relatively funner to find.

>>28439053
I think you're unfairly conflating the intent with the picture was created (to inform people about an interesting piece of Japanese culture) and the intent with which it is re-posted on facebook (to justify the poster's poor life choices and gain social capital from other hoes and hoe-saving betas). You have yet to convince me that it is not a cool looking bowl, probably cooler looking an unbroken clay bowl. I'm also not a Buddhist.

>>28439283
'T-there's no connotations in it, it's just an innocent bit of trivia!'

Truly the endgame of all discussions with Buddhists, just before 'I'm not a Buddhist, I just think there is a lot of valuable insights in it'.

>You have yet to convince me that it is not a cool looking bowl, probably cooler looking an unbroken clay bowl.

If somebody parametrized and posted a formula for, say, the proportion of the volume of a half of a spheroid hollowed by a cocentric spheroid to the volume defined by a shape on its outer surface, or something like that, I would probably read it. But pushing people to find things pretty or ugly, like that picture tries to do? I have grown out of that years ago.

>>28439370
I actually think Buddhism is a load of shit and I'd take you a hell of a lot more seriously if you stopped accusing anyone who disagreed with you of being a Buddhist.

>>28439428
Well that doesn't change the fact that that picture was obviously meant with an agenda: cf. 'art' governing both participial 'repairing' and 'understanding' (otherwise there would be a dissonant lack of parallellism), so it directly states that understanding its crappy message is positive.

>>28439473
what is the message

>>28439538
You can't expect me to recap all particular fallacies it relies on in one post (read the thread for that), so I'll just respost the sentiment it hopes to evoke: 'be lazy, don't exert your will'.

>>28439568
Evocation of which is incidentally the engoal of all Buddhism.

>>28439568
you do realize the breaking and repairing thing is mainly a symbolic representation of man remaking himself - inlaid with gold - after integrating experiences, attaining wisdom, through the fires of hardship right

where does laziness or denial of Will come into play

>>28438823
>>28438977

Oooohhh, I see. I was wondering why /r9k/ would explode over a niche interest of Japanese spiritualists, but now I get it; because it's the opposite of the master-key-and-lock analogy and of course that would drive everyone here up the wall.

Guys, gold lacquer repair is a different thing from whether women should have sex before marriage or not. If you want to argue about that I'm sure there's already a thread up just a few scrolls in either direction from here. There's no need to have these huge posts that are about anything but the matter at hand.

>>28439640
>realize the breaking and repairing thing is mainly a symbolic representation of man remaking himself

Even if this were right, it would also imply laziness through implying existence of free will ('remaking oneself'), which is a lazy, self-complacent philosophy of not bothering to ensure contingencies in case of future difficulties ('I have free will, I will deal with problems no matter what, if I am not competent enough to ensure my success or someone's else, then I'll... oh... oh I'll just try and exert my free will harder, okay? fuck off and stop bothering me with your what ifs to prepare for.').

>>28439936
(As well as a way to justify intellectual laziness of 'I just chose to act this way' ('I chose to remake myself this way'), obviously -- I forgot about the simplest example.)

>>28439936
(And, obviosly, free will is used to reject responsibility for helping others: 'they can help themselves, so I don't need to'.)

>>28438456
you stupid fucking idiot

its a japanese artform

>>28440042
'It has four legs.'
'You stupid fucking idiot! It has thirty teeth!'

>>28439936
what the fuck kind of drivel is this. you actually expect me to take your spurious sophistry seriously.

>>28439962
wrong

>>28440013
and free will is also about choosing to help people that cannot help themselves

you're such a blithering idiot. you type out entire paragraphs that say absolutely nothing, and haven't the perception to understand the meaning behind a ainple artform. get some real world experience and stop posting. reading your disingenous, grasping bullshit is literally painful

you are not insightful in any way and are severly autistic

>>28440168
'k'

>extra content about the lack of which the robot complains any likes of which were absent from your post

>>28438441
Western Europe rulez. FUCK THE ANGLOSPHERES