Capricorn darkest sign?

AppLeo

Well-known member
The Capricorns that I've seen aren't really dark, just boring and mature.

From my observation, Cancers seem to be the darkest sign because almost all of them go through a depressing, "woe is me", phase.
 

Syrus

Banned
When people say scorpio is the darkest sign, they really have no clue how dark capricorn is... Cap is the darkest sign, there isn't anything that compares....It's the darkest time of year too, the ancients interpreted Dec 25 as the day the sun dies, and the new one starts. Cap also represents the darkside of the moon too.


However, that said, the devil is not capricorn. Capricorn is an earth sign. Human beings are of the earth element. The devil is made of fire, that's why he was the "light bringer" and he showed immense pride. Capricorn is actually a sign that has a deep connection with religion, culture, tradition.



So in the philosophical context, dark represents the yin, the feminine of the yin and yang.


How is that pessimistic as opposed to realistic? A pessimist might be inclined to be anxiety riddled at the start of the day because he is almost expecting the worse out of experience - seeing ghosts where they don't exist. I don't find that approach to be that realistic either.


Pessimist leans more to a realist if the facts and logic are integreted, seeing the negative and dealing with that. The truth hurts is the saying.
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
I don't see how an integration of facts and logic cannot result in a positive or an optimistic outlook if the situation calls for it - the key is to have a measured view of a situation so that one sees where the negatives lie and where in the situation one can effect a positive or more favourable outcome in favour of an overarching objective that one deems fit to pursue. A nuanced view of a situation is one that can incorporate a cold hard look at what is wrong, as well as an ability not to throw out the baby with the bathwater - finding ways to appreciate that the silver lining is just as valid and relevant to the "reality" - and sometimes even that the there is more than a silver lining to the situation that a too pessimistic attitude will blind one too.

The truth hurts is a saying - but the way the truth hurts doesn't always come from the fact that the "truth" is a negative.

One might be disappointed in the fact that they are really a compassionate and polite person who doesn't like to rock the boat, where they would have liked to be the total badass that can silence a room with their presence.

People hide from the good as much as they hide from the bad - and even more so when being bad is fashionable.

Cliff notes - the truth is nuanced, neither too optimistic or too pessimistic, and I don't agree that pessimism is more closer to the truth. Pessimism may lead to less disappointment because one doesn't have their hopes set high, but pessimism can blind one to what is really true and possible because of its preemptive defensiveness.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
It's definitely a fallacy that 'facts' = pessimism. Both pessimism and optimism can be equal distortions of 'facts'. I'm not gonna even go down the rabbithole of subjective reality. I'm just saying I don't understand how anyone can rationally think pessimism is more realistic than optimism


The truth is, pessimism can just be a pussy move because pessimism means one doesn't have to hope for something good and be let down whereas someone with a more optimistic outlook may have better coping mechanisms when bad **** happens
 

Syrus

Banned
I don't see how an integration of facts and logic cannot result in a positive or an optimistic outlook if the situation calls for it - the key is to have a measured view of a situation so that one sees where the negatives lie and where in the situation one can effect a positive or more favourable outcome in favour of an overarching objective that one deems fit to pursue. A nuanced view of a situation is one that can incorporate a cold hard look at what is wrong, as well as an ability not to throw out the baby with the bathwater - finding ways to appreciate that the silver lining is just as valid and relevant to the "reality" - and sometimes even that the there is more than a silver lining to the situation that a too pessimistic attitude will blind one too.

The truth hurts is a saying - but the way the truth hurts doesn't always come from the fact that the "truth" is a negative.

One might be disappointed in the fact that they are really a compassionate and polite person who doesn't like to rock the boat, where they would have liked to be the total badass that can silence a room with their presence.

People hide from the good as much as they hide from the bad - and even more so when being bad is fashionable.

Cliff notes - the truth is nuanced, neither too optimistic or too pessimistic, and I don't agree that pessimism is more closer to the truth. Pessimism may lead to less disappointment because one doesn't have their hopes set high, but pessimism can blind one to what is really true and possible because of its preemptive defensiveness.


Most people can't handle the truth because they are too busy trying to be optimistic, the world around them is filtered through how they feel.



I agree though. I think the context here is that capricorn is pessimistic because they are trying to climb up the mountain to greatness and their hopes are way too high where they cant see the path.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Most people can't handle the truth because they are too busy trying to optimistic, the world around them is filtered through how they feel.



I agree. I think the context here is that capricorn is pessimistic because they are trying to climb up the mountain to greatness and their hopes are way too high where they cant see the path.
So what is the truth and how are you privy to it? How do you know an optimistic outlook isn't more akin to 'the truth'?
 

conspiracy theorist

Well-known member
Most people can't handle the truth because they are too busy trying to be optimistic, the world around them is filtered through how they feel.



I agree though. I think the context here is that capricorn is pessimistic because they are trying to climb up the mountain to greatness and their hopes are way too high where they cant see the path.

Where I'm from, people have a "realistic" view that greatly limits the options they have for greater fulfillment and truths beyond what their conception of the world would have them believe. Most, if not all people miss the mark when it comes to a correct perception of reality. We all err in the absence of omniscience in one way or another.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
The balanced middle path is synastry. Factoring in positives and negatives.
So how is a bias toward pessimism factored in here? That's not middle path, that's going to the other side of the spectrum. What you implied was that pessimism was more in line with integration of facts
 

Syrus

Banned
So how is a bias toward pessimism factored in here? That's not middle path, that's going to the other side of the spectrum. What you implied was that pessimism was more in line with integration of facts


Idealistically I agree, it's not the middle path.


However in personal experiences, dealing with people, the pessimists are more likely to be in line with the truth, thats what I've just observed and seen to be true. Most people aren't interested in the truth, because the truth most of the time hurts and they are more interested in how they feel, either its about feeling right or feeling good. These are based on my countless experiences. People can't handle the truth. And I can accept that to an extent.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Now that begs the question... How do we determine the truth? And these 'facts', how do we determine that they are in fact 'truths'? See we're human and because we're human we're bound to the limitations of the human brain, but the universe doesn't operate by the laws of the human brain. Outside our brains, 'truths' may not exist or they may not be what we assume them to be. And by that, anyone may be correct in their subjective interpretation of truths

It may be that all we really have is feeling and intuition rather than 'facts' because facts don't exist
 

Syrus

Banned
Now that begs the question... How do we determine the truth? And these 'facts', how do we determine that they are in fact 'truths'? See we're human and because we're human we're bound to the limitations of the human brain, but the universe doesn't operate by the laws of the human brain. Outside our brains, 'truths' may not exist or they may not be what we assume them to be. And by that, anyone may be correct in their subjective interpretation of truths

It may be that all we really have is feeling and intuition rather than 'facts' because facts don't exist


Science is evidence of objective truths. Evidence based truths. So truth comes in two forms, objective and subjective. Objective truths are the facts what give us form to the reality we are in.



Subjective truths are also valid to the point of being able to agree to disagree.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Science is based in human interpretation and most of it is just meant to brainwash us. People will abide by science like religion and that's a telltale sign

'Objective truths' are not truths we can determine by scientific means because those are inherently rooted in infantile human ways because our brains are incapable of seeing THE truth. Science is based in how we as humans interpret the world on a very physical level whereas real truth is beyond the physical dimensions we're bound to

Scientific truths aren't objective truths, but they do have relevance, but only to a certain extent
 

Syrus

Banned
Science is based in human interpretation and most of it is just meant to brainwash us. People will abide by science like religion and that's a telltale sign

'Objective truths' are not truths we can determine by scientific means because those are inherently rooted in infantile human means. Science is based in how we as humans interpret the world on a very physical level whereas real truth is beyond the physical dimensions we're bound to

Scientific truths aren't objective truths, but they do have relevance, but only to a certain extent


Science is not based on human interpretation, it's based on the laws of nature, and providing evidence to prove it's truth.



You're just talking about subjective truth not objective truths, science is objective, because theres not feelings and emotions involved.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Science is not based on human interpretation, it's based on the laws of nature, and providing evidence to prove it's truth.



You're just talking about subjective truth not objective truths, science is objective, because theres not feelings and emotions involved.
Yes, and it's based on how we interpret the laws of nature. Do we have any proof that any laws at all exist outside our subjective interpretations and desire to find patterns in the world around us?

Humans are all subjective because no matter what, you cannot escape the fact that all you see is based purely in our individual perception, not anything you can say with certainty is actually objective truth

The reason why science isn't objective truth is because it's all based on laws and logic and empiricism we assume don't just exist solely in our brains
 

Syrus

Banned
Yes, and it's based on how we interpret the laws of nature. Do we have any proof that any laws at all exist outside our subjective interpretations and desire to find patterns in the world around us?

Humans are all subjective because no matter what, you cannot escape the fact that all you see is based purely in our individual perception, not anything you can say with certainty is actually objective truth

The reason why science isn't objective truth is because it's all based on laws and logic and empiricism we assume don't just exist solely in our brains


It's a collective, agreeable, evidence-based, factual interpretation of the laws of nature, unless someone provides further factual-evidence based interpretation. It's not subjective, it is objective.


Yes we have proof because all we are all in subjective agreement of the natural world, making it objective. It doesn't matter whether it just exists in our brains, because the evidence shows it exists within the physical dimension around us, as we are all in this same dimension and agree on the same thing.


Mathematics and science has allowed us to tinker and edit the world around us, that's fact.


Just what exactly are you getting at. Let's take a break from science, and lets here you personal interpretations of reality and what it all means, and don't give me its all meaningless.
 

Lykanized

Well-known member
Of course it's not meaningless... Idk where you'd get the idea I think existence is meaningless from. On the contrary, I see meaning everywhere

But you're looking at things from a very humancentric perspective and I'm not. All of these are tools we've used as humans, but there is no evidence whatsoever that what we perceive that leads to these systems of maths and science are actually based in fact outside our human brains
 

Syrus

Banned
No thats not my dominant view, it's just one example I gave you of an objective truth that we can agree on. Since you disagree with it, I am asking yours.
 
Top