> reading the wrong things is evil and can corrupt the mind
How true is this statement /x/?
>>16936003
knowledge is inherently neutral. It's what YOU decide to do with it that makes it good or bad.
>>16936012
Quite right, but you have not considered the fact that you are not the same once you change your knowledge, your understanding of thing.
If you control knowledge to an extend, knowledge controls you to an extend.
The op did not ask if knowledge is evil, but if there is knowledge that can corrupt the mind.
And yes there is if we take the word corrupted as "twisted" or "turned".
With some sort of knowledge, and there is alot of it even on /x/, you will be lead in circles.
I don't say, that it is bad to know a thing or two.
But it is more important to understand some fundamental things about ones own knowledge.
Control is always mutual. If I want to control you I also give way to the control of you over me.
There is control of different flavors. One obvious, one subtle.
If one does not understand what knowledge one has, and what knowledge one not has things can become twisted real quick.
I prefer the taoist way.
"The scholar learns a thing a day,
The taoist unlearns a thing a day."
What this does is, makes room for clarity. It doesnt make you more stupid, it makes you more efficient in things that you acctualy know.
And people pretend and lie about things they know all the time, they can't help it.
>>16936003
i read a vore story on the internet once and it was DEFINITELY evil and corrupting, i haven't been the same since
but outside of discovering fetishes you didn't know you had, knowledge is never inherently corrupting
>>16936012
What this niga said
I read a recipe about eggs and it was based on Crowley cake. Now I can't stop eating Crowley cake. Be warned, /x/. Beyond the vale is Crowley cake eggs.
Think of the mind as a processing mechanism: Input, therefore, output. What you feed your mind is what your thoughts are more likely to be based around. This is not saying you are a product of your environment, but that what you desire to see, and do see constantly, are the things that are more likely to be in your thoughts.
You even been on /r9k/? Shit will wreck your brain. You'll start thinking all girls are out to get you and blame you for rape.....and they're right...
>>16936003
If you're trying to learn one thing then reading something else won't help at all.
If you decide to learn that thing instead then it's no longer wrong to read it.
>>16936003
If it's true then you should stop spending so much time on 4chan.
>>16936320
Watching the wrong things. Hearing the wrong things.
We have reached a point where hypnosis is embedded into our TV. Next time you watch a television show, make sure you watch it knowing the things they say influence your head, and it's very easy to notice when you're not tranced into the story, but rather, taking things out of context, reading body language and voice pitches, sound effects, etc. You'll realize how suggestible and manipulated your ideas and opinions , towards practically everything. You think you've seen it all, but not even I see it when I don't try to. The idea that we can be easily controlled by media because of our gullibility by a group with a purpose to sell and control more isn't such an out-of-reach idea after all. We play a song 200 times and we practically suck up all that information. Also, don't EVER use sarcasm to prove a point. Sarcasm is a fucked up touchy subject.
>>16936003
>> reading the wrong things is evil and can corrupt the mind
And who decides what the wrong things are?
>>16938531
We are inherently evil, the wrong things are the things that are detrimental to others for our own gain.
By being "good" or the closest thing to "good" you're improving the lives of other's with your knowledge and power.
By listening to "wrong" things, I mean things that put you in control of someone else, for their gain, without any empathy for your own thirst of power.
>>16938540
If we learn to move humanity upwards at the cost of our own power, we'll be performing godly things. The adequate sacrifice for the sake of humanity's progress.
>>16936003
I'm going to interpret this loosely and consider it to refer to learning and misinformation.
In this case, yes. Learning incorrect information can be considered "corrupting" because the longer it stays with you before being corrected, the harder it is to correct.
My own anecdote is the pronunciation of "nuclear". Growing up, the people around me regularly pronounced it "new-kyu-ler" and I STILL stumble on it dispite being a physics student. Now, I understand we could argue about the "rightness" of language and whether fixed rules of speech are practical or appropriate but I hope you get my point.
Basically, the sentiment strikes me as ancient wisdom misinterpreted. Misinformation is hard to correct. I'm sure this could be backed up with psyc papers by someone less lazy.
>>16938540
But wouldn't you have to read the things to determine if they are wrong?
Reading something doesn't mean you have to act on it.
And we are not inherently evil. I don't know where you got that idea from, but its just plain wrong.
>>16938569
>Reading something doesn't mean you have to act on it.
Yet we do it, more than you could possibly imagine. Look at your opinions and beliefs and really ask yourself why you believe them. Take the time to question why you do the things you do.
You'll agree with me on the second point if you take the time. Evil being a synonym for selfish.
>>16938582
Maybe you do, but most of us aren't as weak willed as you.
Evil is not a synonym for selfish. Stop trying to push your personal beliefs onto definitions of words.
>>16938625
Our will has NOTHING to do with it.
What is your definition of evil, then? When you don't counter argument, you argument weakens.
>>16938627
>profoundly immoral and wicked.
Being selfish isn't evil at all.
>>16938632
What do you mean by immoral and wicked?
You'll get my point, eventually.
>>16938645
>You'll understand eventually lol!
Ah the last resort of someone trying to seem intelligent but in reality has nothing to say.
You can't provide an actual point so you just act cryptic instead.
>>16938676
How ironic, typical remark of someone who thinks he knows everything.
You might actually never get it.
>>16938686
I don't know everything, but you obviously have nothing to say.
>You will never get it
Maybe because you are avoiding actually saying anything of substance, and instead decided to act like you know all the secrets of the universe but you can't tell anyone until they work it out themselves.
>>16938919
You just don't have the capacity to ask yourself your own questions. I'm not going to give you a 1+1 on it, because when I write "What do you mean by immoral and wicked?" I am actually asking you to ask yourself, go down the rabbit hole of why yourself. You'll end up understanding what I mean when you read by words under a new light.
There is no such thing as selflessness. The closest we'll get is to do good because you know it's good, which makes you feel good when you do it. How many people would be praying to God if they knew they weren't going to heaven.
We are in hell, everyone's a pig in the money game.
But, again, everyone has to walk the path to understand it, which is why I urge you to ask your own questions where I'm guiding you.
So, one more time; what do you mean by immoral and wicked?
>>16936131
>>16938492
Does this apply to Ed Edd and Eddy? Because that's about all I watch
