Despite our Wizard Unity, Wizchan is far from a hugbox. And maybe on a topic like philosophy some of that rhetorical, logical, dialectical debating skill can be put to good use. Instead of just discussing philosophy, lets actually do philosophy. This is the modern socratic dialogue.
I'll just get us started with some unsolved questions in philosophical debates, with a preference for topics which might be of reference to Wizards.
http://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
Free Will vs Determinism
Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
Materialism vs Idealism
Does God exist?
What is the meaning of life?
Is sexual reproduction immoral?
Are morals culturally relative?
Can suicide be rationally justified?
Do categories objectively exist?
Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Are ideas determined by material conditions?
Empiricism vs Rationalism
Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Is there such a thing as historical progress?
How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
What is the well-lived Wizard life?
I'll just get us started with some unsolved questions in philosophical debates, with a preference for topics which might be of reference to Wizards.
http://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy
Free Will vs Determinism
Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
Materialism vs Idealism
Does God exist?
What is the meaning of life?
Is sexual reproduction immoral?
Are morals culturally relative?
Can suicide be rationally justified?
Do categories objectively exist?
Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Are ideas determined by material conditions?
Empiricism vs Rationalism
Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Is there such a thing as historical progress?
How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
What is the well-lived Wizard life?
The ultimate question is why is there something rather than nothing?
For a question like this i find the antropomorphized philosophical concept of a Creator God is useful, despite being an atheist.
Would the creation of a universe such as this be justified? Would it be better if there was nothing at all? Can the existence of life be justified on utilitarian grounds of net pleasures and pains? Is there a value in life and existence beyond that rational calculus?
If the sole object of negative utilitarianism is to reduce pain would it be better to have a doomsday machine to destroy the entire universe?
Is Darwinism the only means to create life in accordance with free will? IE is Darwinism the only way in which intelligent life can be created by a "Hidden God" as opposed to one who makes himself visible and directly intervenes? A directly intervening God could be argued to be inherently an obstacle to free will. If God wishes to remain hidden from Man, would Darwinian natural and sexual selection be the only means to create Man?
For a question like this i find the antropomorphized philosophical concept of a Creator God is useful, despite being an atheist.
Would the creation of a universe such as this be justified? Would it be better if there was nothing at all? Can the existence of life be justified on utilitarian grounds of net pleasures and pains? Is there a value in life and existence beyond that rational calculus?
If the sole object of negative utilitarianism is to reduce pain would it be better to have a doomsday machine to destroy the entire universe?
Is Darwinism the only means to create life in accordance with free will? IE is Darwinism the only way in which intelligent life can be created by a "Hidden God" as opposed to one who makes himself visible and directly intervenes? A directly intervening God could be argued to be inherently an obstacle to free will. If God wishes to remain hidden from Man, would Darwinian natural and sexual selection be the only means to create Man?
>>25266
To answer these, wouldn't it first be necessary to establish if existence is an end on itself, or a means to an end?
In the first case it has its utility value just by coming into being, while on the other it has its utility value as it is able to reach its outcome.
Can any other position be argued?
Also, Darwinism may not necessarily be in accordance with free will. If anything it opposes it, by presenting mechanical and deductible methods of predicting behavior and development.
To answer these, wouldn't it first be necessary to establish if existence is an end on itself, or a means to an end?
In the first case it has its utility value just by coming into being, while on the other it has its utility value as it is able to reach its outcome.
Can any other position be argued?
Also, Darwinism may not necessarily be in accordance with free will. If anything it opposes it, by presenting mechanical and deductible methods of predicting behavior and development.
>>25287
If God were too obviously apparent in the world, then there would be no free will, as how could anyone stand up to an omnipotent deity? There could be no morality where good was instantly certainly rewarded and evil likewise punished. Darwinism would thus be a way of God to hide himself, and let Man create his own world, finding God only in Faith.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
If God were too obviously apparent in the world, then there would be no free will, as how could anyone stand up to an omnipotent deity? There could be no morality where good was instantly certainly rewarded and evil likewise punished. Darwinism would thus be a way of God to hide himself, and let Man create his own world, finding God only in Faith.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
>>25288
But darwinism does not let man create his world. It allows itself to be investigated, just to present the world as, at least apparently, predetermined, leading to the conclusion of morality inexisting outside of human creation.
And any solution to a problem of divine hiddenness seems inherently flawed, since wherever God or God's way is said to have been found, His hiding-place failed.
But darwinism does not let man create his world. It allows itself to be investigated, just to present the world as, at least apparently, predetermined, leading to the conclusion of morality inexisting outside of human creation.
And any solution to a problem of divine hiddenness seems inherently flawed, since wherever God or God's way is said to have been found, His hiding-place failed.
Normies are Philosophical Zombies. Having a self-consciousness does not serve and reproductive benefit. They simply behave, but they do not think.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/
>>25266
Stipulating that a god created the universe doesn't really answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". It just creates more questions which cannot be answered. Such as: "Why would this god create the universe?" "Why does this god exist?" In addition to wild and baseless speculations as to this god's intentions, desires, and whatnot. A common reply to "Why does this god exist?" is that that this god's existence is "necessary", that this god could not fail to exist. But what is it about this god that is necessary, such that the world could not be? Why is it not possible for the world's existence to be necessary? If we are willing to suppose that a god's existence could be brute, with no explanation, why would this not work for the world itself, or for, say, the quantum foam from which the world appears to have sprung, according to some physical theories? Such an idea seems, by Occam's Razor, the preferable one, seeing as it avoids multiplying entities. Instead of positing some being for whose existence we have no evidence, whose existence would seem to contradict many features of our world (problem of evil, problem of poor design, natural selection rendering design obsolete as explanation for complexity, &c.) whose existence, would, in the end, require the same explanation one might wish to avoid using to explain the world (viz. in order to avoid saying the world's existence is brutal, one posits a god whose existence is brutal) why not just bite the bullet and say that the world exists, brute fact? Or that existence simpliciter is necessary?
>>25287
Existence could not be a means to an end, because there is nothing "outside" existence, it couldn't be an means to anything, because for something to be an end, it would have to exist, which would mean that there is simply more things existing, more members in the set of "existing things"
We also need to avoid reifying what is essentially a rubric for decision making. People have ends, and means are that by which people achieve their ends. Existence could not be an end in itself because there is nothing "outside" existence for which it could be an end. The whole concept of ends and means presupposes existence, existing people, and an environment filled with things.
>>25288
An omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything. (Some definitions restrict this to "logically possible" things – what counts as "logically possible" being subject to debate – and other definitions essentially say "fuck logic, god does what god wants")
Anyway, an omnipotent being can do anything. Let us take the first definition of omnipotence to begin with. God can do anything logically possible. Either it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to interact with "mere mortals", or it is not. There is no sometimes, there is no "little bit pregnant." If it is logically possible, then a god really has no excuse for hiding. If it is not, religion is utterly pointless, as even in an afterlife interaction with a god would be impossible. Not only are they pointless, they are also, ironically, completely false, given that the basis for all theistic religions is some interaction between a god and humans. The second definition of omnipotence gives takes away even the excuse of logical impossibility.
Stipulating that a god created the universe doesn't really answer the question "Why is there something rather than nothing?". It just creates more questions which cannot be answered. Such as: "Why would this god create the universe?" "Why does this god exist?" In addition to wild and baseless speculations as to this god's intentions, desires, and whatnot. A common reply to "Why does this god exist?" is that that this god's existence is "necessary", that this god could not fail to exist. But what is it about this god that is necessary, such that the world could not be? Why is it not possible for the world's existence to be necessary? If we are willing to suppose that a god's existence could be brute, with no explanation, why would this not work for the world itself, or for, say, the quantum foam from which the world appears to have sprung, according to some physical theories? Such an idea seems, by Occam's Razor, the preferable one, seeing as it avoids multiplying entities. Instead of positing some being for whose existence we have no evidence, whose existence would seem to contradict many features of our world (problem of evil, problem of poor design, natural selection rendering design obsolete as explanation for complexity, &c.) whose existence, would, in the end, require the same explanation one might wish to avoid using to explain the world (viz. in order to avoid saying the world's existence is brutal, one posits a god whose existence is brutal) why not just bite the bullet and say that the world exists, brute fact? Or that existence simpliciter is necessary?
>>25287
Existence could not be a means to an end, because there is nothing "outside" existence, it couldn't be an means to anything, because for something to be an end, it would have to exist, which would mean that there is simply more things existing, more members in the set of "existing things"
We also need to avoid reifying what is essentially a rubric for decision making. People have ends, and means are that by which people achieve their ends. Existence could not be an end in itself because there is nothing "outside" existence for which it could be an end. The whole concept of ends and means presupposes existence, existing people, and an environment filled with things.
>>25288
An omnipotent being can, by definition, do anything. (Some definitions restrict this to "logically possible" things – what counts as "logically possible" being subject to debate – and other definitions essentially say "fuck logic, god does what god wants")
Anyway, an omnipotent being can do anything. Let us take the first definition of omnipotence to begin with. God can do anything logically possible. Either it is logically possible for an omnipotent being to interact with "mere mortals", or it is not. There is no sometimes, there is no "little bit pregnant." If it is logically possible, then a god really has no excuse for hiding. If it is not, religion is utterly pointless, as even in an afterlife interaction with a god would be impossible. Not only are they pointless, they are also, ironically, completely false, given that the basis for all theistic religions is some interaction between a god and humans. The second definition of omnipotence gives takes away even the excuse of logical impossibility.
This guy uses Hegesias of Cyrene as an abuctio ad absurdum to criticize Rawls. Rawls is famous for the veil of ignorance. That if we didn't know who were going to be in a society, and had to decide what kind of society it was going to be, the rational choice would be a market welfare state.
But the author coming from the position of an Ayn Randist suggest that it is driven by a timid low-risk low-reward negative hedonism. The goal is to minimize risk and pain. He suggest that this type of negative utilitarianism ultimately leads to the philosophy of Hegesias in which suicide is the escape from all risks and pains in life.
http://philpapers.org/rec/MATHTD
>
Hegesias (3d c.BC), as hedonist, held that the sage will kill himself. For: One should pursue pleasure and avoid pain. But life is virtually certain to contain more pain than pleasure. Therefore death, which is neither pleasurable nor painful, is better than life. The flaw in the argument lies in the underlying game-theoretical model of life as a game in which play and payoff are distinct. Hegesias's conclusion, that life is not ‘worth living,’ is inescapable by any philosophy so based, including John Rawls's. Why shouldn't his rational persons behind the veil of ignorance opt for prenatal suicide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesias_of_Cyrene
https://books.google.com/books?id=GOfqqrylHYAC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Wallace+I.+Matson+ayn&source=bl&ots=_M_recT4vC&sig=SOQRJqLgS4K-pFdOYII0rzhx4I4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy3ayG1IXNAhXLcD4KHUd6AJAQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Wallace%20I.%20Matson%20ayn&f=false
But the author coming from the position of an Ayn Randist suggest that it is driven by a timid low-risk low-reward negative hedonism. The goal is to minimize risk and pain. He suggest that this type of negative utilitarianism ultimately leads to the philosophy of Hegesias in which suicide is the escape from all risks and pains in life.
http://philpapers.org/rec/MATHTD
>
Hegesias (3d c.BC), as hedonist, held that the sage will kill himself. For: One should pursue pleasure and avoid pain. But life is virtually certain to contain more pain than pleasure. Therefore death, which is neither pleasurable nor painful, is better than life. The flaw in the argument lies in the underlying game-theoretical model of life as a game in which play and payoff are distinct. Hegesias's conclusion, that life is not ‘worth living,’ is inescapable by any philosophy so based, including John Rawls's. Why shouldn't his rational persons behind the veil of ignorance opt for prenatal suicide?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegesias_of_Cyrene
https://books.google.com/books?id=GOfqqrylHYAC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=Wallace+I.+Matson+ayn&source=bl&ots=_M_recT4vC&sig=SOQRJqLgS4K-pFdOYII0rzhx4I4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy3ayG1IXNAhXLcD4KHUd6AJAQ6AEIKjAC#v=onepage&q=Wallace%20I.%20Matson%20ayn&f=false
What would be lost by living your desired life inside of an Experience Machine (AKA The Matrix) instead of reality?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
File: 1464830862832.jpg (133.81 KB, 600x600, 1:1, xQZVBlD.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>25265
Look at this image I found in the front page of reddit. Now look at the bottom right corner, it isn't funny?
Look at this image I found in the front page of reddit. Now look at the bottom right corner, it isn't funny?
>>25356
Wow I thought eastern philosophy was a lot more impressive, here it looks like the retarded stepchild of western philosophers. Especially confucianism, it seems like a total normcattle joke "Live a normal life" just pathetic.
Wow I thought eastern philosophy was a lot more impressive, here it looks like the retarded stepchild of western philosophers. Especially confucianism, it seems like a total normcattle joke "Live a normal life" just pathetic.
>>25356
Interesting that this definition of Logical Positivism makes it sound almost like Existentialism
David Benatar is actually big on that. Using Analytic Philosophy to express existential ideas about the meaning of life.
Interesting that this definition of Logical Positivism makes it sound almost like Existentialism
David Benatar is actually big on that. Using Analytic Philosophy to express existential ideas about the meaning of life.
File: 1464833498519-0.pdf (340.72 KB, free will theorem.pdf)
I think the whole question of determinism and free will goes back to the question of materialism or if there's something higher like an immaterial soul or a god given free will.
If everything is materialistic we probably dont have free will because it doesn't matter if the matter itself is deterministic or indeterministic, We humans would be nothing more than the something physical just like everything else, and also our brain would fully mechanical, free will being nothing more than a illusion.
But we already have proven indeterminism thanks to quantum mechanics, which don't directly give us free will, but they prove that there's still hope left for free will, and currently the question is still unsolved.
But we already have thinks like "free will theorem"
If everything is materialistic we probably dont have free will because it doesn't matter if the matter itself is deterministic or indeterministic, We humans would be nothing more than the something physical just like everything else, and also our brain would fully mechanical, free will being nothing more than a illusion.
But we already have proven indeterminism thanks to quantum mechanics, which don't directly give us free will, but they prove that there's still hope left for free will, and currently the question is still unsolved.
But we already have thinks like "free will theorem"
>>25363
Free will is kind of the middle ground between determinism and randomness. If an act is totally determined by the past course of events, we don't consider it free. But if its just totally random, that isn't freedom either. In fact an act totally inconsistent with a person's past history, can even be a justification for "temporary insanity" that he wasn't in control.
What exactly is a free willed action? It needs to be a little bit determined by past history but also a little but unpredictable but neither entirely random nor entirely predestined.
Free will is kind of the middle ground between determinism and randomness. If an act is totally determined by the past course of events, we don't consider it free. But if its just totally random, that isn't freedom either. In fact an act totally inconsistent with a person's past history, can even be a justification for "temporary insanity" that he wasn't in control.
What exactly is a free willed action? It needs to be a little bit determined by past history but also a little but unpredictable but neither entirely random nor entirely predestined.
>>25363
Honestly the question of whether free will is possible or not is redundant without a definition of free will.
What does free will even mean?
Traditionally this is 'liberty over one's own actions', but that's just a rewording.
Defining what 'one' is may help. Are you just your brain? Let's assume that modern physicists are more accurate than 5000 year old desert people and say that the brain is all there is to someone's mental being. A host computer.
You could argue that the soul is software, information itself. And that's part of physics- laws of information are like laws of matter and energy, and you could argue that matter and energy are just collections of information.
Diverging but you can see how difficult this question really is, because you don't even know what the question means.
A preemptive conclusion is pretty simple, if you define 'yourself' as your brain, then any action taken by your brain is, automatically, your own will, regardless as to if it was 'determined' or not. Determination is actually meaningless to will.
So what does it matter if an atom in this place or that could butterfly effect your decisions? That's like saying that what you will yourself to eat for breakfast changes based on what is on the menu.
Ultimately I think free will is just a concept that has no valid reality, a purely human concept, anthropomorphizing ourselves, if that makes any sense.
Honestly the question of whether free will is possible or not is redundant without a definition of free will.
What does free will even mean?
Traditionally this is 'liberty over one's own actions', but that's just a rewording.
Defining what 'one' is may help. Are you just your brain? Let's assume that modern physicists are more accurate than 5000 year old desert people and say that the brain is all there is to someone's mental being. A host computer.
You could argue that the soul is software, information itself. And that's part of physics- laws of information are like laws of matter and energy, and you could argue that matter and energy are just collections of information.
Diverging but you can see how difficult this question really is, because you don't even know what the question means.
A preemptive conclusion is pretty simple, if you define 'yourself' as your brain, then any action taken by your brain is, automatically, your own will, regardless as to if it was 'determined' or not. Determination is actually meaningless to will.
So what does it matter if an atom in this place or that could butterfly effect your decisions? That's like saying that what you will yourself to eat for breakfast changes based on what is on the menu.
Ultimately I think free will is just a concept that has no valid reality, a purely human concept, anthropomorphizing ourselves, if that makes any sense.
I found this article interesting, on how Normies would live in a world without fertility.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/the-importance-of-the-afterlife-seriously/?_r=0
What would you do if you knew for certain the world would end 30 days after you die?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/21/the-importance-of-the-afterlife-seriously/?_r=0
What would you do if you knew for certain the world would end 30 days after you die?
>>25409
A lot of things Normies do assume that there is going to be a world around after they die.
A lot of things Normies do assume that there is going to be a world around after they die.
>>25358
Isn't positivism a philosophical school that say that only scientific experiment can describe physical phenomenon. Unless I'm wrong, positivism has nothing to do with giving meaning to life, I'd even say that a positivist will abstain from giving any meaning to life, as it has nothing to do with observing and understanding the world with science.
It's like she just looked at the word and decided what it mean.
Isn't positivism a philosophical school that say that only scientific experiment can describe physical phenomenon. Unless I'm wrong, positivism has nothing to do with giving meaning to life, I'd even say that a positivist will abstain from giving any meaning to life, as it has nothing to do with observing and understanding the world with science.
It's like she just looked at the word and decided what it mean.
consciousness. Consciousness plays a huge fucking role in the whole simulation debate. The PC games we currently have, and probably also the PC games we'll have in a hundred years have NPCs, which are just pixels on our screen and zeroes and ones in the progamm, but they dont have consciousness. So, for our reality to be a simulation, somebody would be able to simulate consciousness in the simulation. I think simulating consciousness in a simulation is doable, "Brain In A Vat - Hypothesis" for example (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat) So, It should be doable for a scientist, in a reality which is WAY more complicated than ours to run our reality a simulation with having one consciousness being in this reality, (Brain in a Vat for example) But it already gets kind of complicated if we're talking about simulating fucking 7 billion consciousnesses, if we're saying that in our reality there are no NPCs, and every human you can observe is also a consciousness being, A scientist (If we're just going on the point where a single scientist is simulating our whole reality) Would have to simulate 7 000 000 000 consciousnesses!!! It's getting kind of tricky here, and this hole consciousness problem wasnt mentioned by "Elon Musk". The next thing which is kind of illogical, if we're thinking about our reality being nothing more than a simulation is. Why are there fucking billions of stars being billions of light years away from us which have basically no impact on us? (You could say these billions of stars dont actually exist and they are also just an optical illusion to us, which was simulated by a scientist for example, But let's just say they likely do actually exist besides our on observation, because they seem to make mathematical sense and play a big role in our scientific model of the universe). So the Scientist simulated a fucking TON of stuff which he could likely just get rid off and easily just simulate our earth, which would be enough. Wouldn't the simulation be way faster and be way less likely to crash then? the thing about "crashing" is the next point. How come our simulation runs so fucking smooth that there are never any laggs or crashes? I mean its basically fucking PERFECT, (yes yes you could argue an intelligent civilisation would also be able to do this, making such a perfect simulation like our reality that it will never have any laggs or crashes) But it's very unlikely a intelligent civilisation is able to do this. Another point is the "Simulation in the Simulation thing" If we're saying our reality is nothing more than a simulation, Is the reality running our simulation base reality then? Or is just another simulation in a simulation, which might also just be another simulation, and so on and so on, we can go like 10 layers deep, 10 layers of simulations until we reach base reality. Wouldn't it be very fucking lately that atleast one of these simulations will crash at some point? or atleast lagg? And I mean if just one of these simulations crashes or laggs at one point, every simulation behind its own will also have to crash or lagg. And since we didnt have any crashes or laggs in billions of years, (Well probably we cant even fucking know when our reality is crashing or lagging because TIME doesnt really exist outside our own mind and perception) So they reality behind our simulation just easily reboot our simulation after an lagg our crash, without us noticing, but if we're going on the point that there are actually multiple layers of simulations, and a simulation which is quite a few layers behind us crashes at some point, We are also very likely to crash, without us ever comming back or getting re-booted again. And our reality crashing hasnt happened in billions of years (Well this doesnt really matter because as I said time doesnt really exist outside our mind and perception, but I think you get the point) SO, IF we're still going on about the point that our reality is nothing more than a simulation we have to be quite close to base reality, probably we're even one of the only simulations existing. Let's say we're actually the only Simulation existing, and behind us lays >>>BASE REALITY<<<, for what do they simulate us? pure fun? experiments? They're probably not doing any expirements because they already good enough knowledge and dont need us as simulatin if they're able to simulate such a reality as ours. So are they just simulating us for their fun, maybe as a movie? They've probably could've better now. Do they want to create pleasure? Like are they following a hedonistic philosophy and try to create as much pleasure as possible? (Read this wikipedia for more information about the pleasure-machine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine) If they're just simulating us to create pleasure, they've also could've done better. We could also say they are simulating us to get a kind of test done, like they're being our god (IGNOSTICISM UGH https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism) and people doing well enough in this simulation are able to get in to heaven or base reality or stuff like this, who knows matezzzz…… But do they really get anything out of that? does that serve them anything? They could've done way better simulations than our reality then, we got fucking wars, child rapists, and so on and son. Another problem is how Free Will is possible in a simulation. I mean even without our reality being a simulation we got this fucking problem of Free Will which seems to be so unsolvable, so unsolvable and mind-boggling that its very likely that we dont have any free will. OKAY IF WE STILL FUCKING say that we're living in a simulation we would have to ask ourself the questions, why we're being simulated, and why the simulation is happening just like this, and not a nicer world with more pleasure and without any pain and disorders. You could philosoph a lot about why our simulation was done like this and not differently or why we're being simulated at all. AT THE END it seems to have a lot of logical errors if we're going on about our reality being truly nothing more than a simulation. We cant know if we're a simulation our base reality, and we will never know. So there's really no point discussing but because of the arguments I mentioned above I doubt we're a simulation, or maybe we are, BUT I DOUBT THAT THE CHANCES OF OUR REALITY BEING BASE REALITY IS ONLY ONE IN A BILLION!!!
File: 1466392266888.gif (90.36 KB, 450x325, 18:13, 1390772257363.gif) ImgOps iqdb
>>26132
the problem i think with the computational complexity argument against simulation is that the physics of the next universe up the chain (there may be more than one) are impossible to know. who knows if things we take for granted like conservation of mass/energy, thermodynamics, entropy etc even exist? it may be possible for there to be a reality where everything is infinitely easy, in which case the complexity of any "under-universes" is a complete non-issue. from our standpoint simulating a universe of this scale (even assuming that there are some computational shortcuts like abstracting things that aren't being actively observed) is hard, but who knows what bizarre physics or medium the simulation is operating on?
of course it's all conjecture, but the way physics behaves always struck me as bizarre, and especially how very small things behave differently when they are observed or not observed. that always seemed to me to be emblematic of a 'programmer's shortcut' if the universe exists on it's own you would think that it would have no need to be so strange in the realm of the very small and very fast.
the problem i think with the computational complexity argument against simulation is that the physics of the next universe up the chain (there may be more than one) are impossible to know. who knows if things we take for granted like conservation of mass/energy, thermodynamics, entropy etc even exist? it may be possible for there to be a reality where everything is infinitely easy, in which case the complexity of any "under-universes" is a complete non-issue. from our standpoint simulating a universe of this scale (even assuming that there are some computational shortcuts like abstracting things that aren't being actively observed) is hard, but who knows what bizarre physics or medium the simulation is operating on?
of course it's all conjecture, but the way physics behaves always struck me as bizarre, and especially how very small things behave differently when they are observed or not observed. that always seemed to me to be emblematic of a 'programmer's shortcut' if the universe exists on it's own you would think that it would have no need to be so strange in the realm of the very small and very fast.
For me the grand sweep of capital H History is my God. In a pantheistic universal way it includes all the World's Religions as a Feurbachian consciousness of Man's attempt to understand himself. While all Gods are ontologically false in material existence. Gods are meant to be Spirit not matter. And all Gods have spiritually existed in human consciousness as they advance through history. It is a form of collective solipsism. The collective human Mind creates its own reality.
In the 21st century its hard to see what end goal teleos its all headed for however. Although Kojeve and Fukuyama are somewhat right in that it has all ended in capitalist liberal democracy. There is truth to the End of History thesis. And I don't think terror in the Middle East, nor geopolitical power plays of Russia, fundamentally negates the thesis.
In the 21st century its hard to see what end goal teleos its all headed for however. Although Kojeve and Fukuyama are somewhat right in that it has all ended in capitalist liberal democracy. There is truth to the End of History thesis. And I don't think terror in the Middle East, nor geopolitical power plays of Russia, fundamentally negates the thesis.
>>26242
>Fukuyama are somewhat right in that it has all ended in capitalist liberal democracy. There is truth to the End of History thesis.
It's a lazy Hegelian ripoff and it's obviously wrong since capitalism is turning into corporativism in more ways we know it and democracy is more of a sham than ever before. History doesn't end until the last man on earth dies and using grand words like END OF HISTORY is such desperate way to get academic attention. Our "Capitalist Liberal Democracies" all have less than a 100 years and perhaps we can't even call that anymore. Fukuyama should not be so eager to end history with himself.
>Fukuyama are somewhat right in that it has all ended in capitalist liberal democracy. There is truth to the End of History thesis.
It's a lazy Hegelian ripoff and it's obviously wrong since capitalism is turning into corporativism in more ways we know it and democracy is more of a sham than ever before. History doesn't end until the last man on earth dies and using grand words like END OF HISTORY is such desperate way to get academic attention. Our "Capitalist Liberal Democracies" all have less than a 100 years and perhaps we can't even call that anymore. Fukuyama should not be so eager to end history with himself.
>>26247
>History doesn't end until the last man on earth dies
Well, the full title is The End of History and the Last Man. Not literal death, but the boring peaceful middle class. The decline of the Nietzschean Chad Warrior virtues.
Fukuyama's original essay was written in 1989 with the end of the Cold War and it fit the 1990s very well. But a lot of folks consider it naive and stupid for the post-9/11 world, when there seems to be a lot of history going on. But his basic point that there is no ideological challenge to liberal democracy basically still stands. Islamism is a regional force and Putinism even more so. They are not a serious global challenge like Communism was. By the "end of history" is really meant the "end of ideology". Which Daniel Bell wrote about back in the 1960s. But for a Hegelian, true history is the history of ideologies. The end of ideological history is the end of History.
>History doesn't end until the last man on earth dies
Well, the full title is The End of History and the Last Man. Not literal death, but the boring peaceful middle class. The decline of the Nietzschean Chad Warrior virtues.
Fukuyama's original essay was written in 1989 with the end of the Cold War and it fit the 1990s very well. But a lot of folks consider it naive and stupid for the post-9/11 world, when there seems to be a lot of history going on. But his basic point that there is no ideological challenge to liberal democracy basically still stands. Islamism is a regional force and Putinism even more so. They are not a serious global challenge like Communism was. By the "end of history" is really meant the "end of ideology". Which Daniel Bell wrote about back in the 1960s. But for a Hegelian, true history is the history of ideologies. The end of ideological history is the end of History.
>Phenomenology is the study of structures of consciousness as experienced from the first-person point of view. The central structure of an experience is its intentionality, its being directed toward something, as it is an experience of or about some object.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/phenomenology/
I really hate Natural Theology, and the whole scholastic tradition from Aristotle, that this shitty world is such a wonderful place that we can see God in. The Intelligent Designers are even more retarded for thinking they can reconcile the brutal struggle of Darwinism with a loving benevolent Creator's divine plan.
Ultimately the only rational religion is irrationalism. We must fall back of fideism and a Kierkegaardian Existentialism. We must defy the brute material world of the Darwinian reality in front of us, in favor of a hidden God behind it. A Good God that is against the material world, not with it. Not Gnosticism. But a world so fallen, that God is hidden from us.
Ultimately the only rational religion is irrationalism. We must fall back of fideism and a Kierkegaardian Existentialism. We must defy the brute material world of the Darwinian reality in front of us, in favor of a hidden God behind it. A Good God that is against the material world, not with it. Not Gnosticism. But a world so fallen, that God is hidden from us.
Now this is creative. Hegel's logic chanted like a Buddhist mantra.
https://archive.org/details/hegel
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Christian+Pecaut%22
https://archive.org/details/hegel
https://archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Christian+Pecaut%22
>>25290
>And any solution to a problem of divine hiddenness seems inherently flawed, since wherever God or God's way is said to have been found, His hiding-place failed.
I would say that if the majority of scientists are atheists. And the material world gives one no rational basis for theism. Then God is indeed hidden from rational man.
>And any solution to a problem of divine hiddenness seems inherently flawed, since wherever God or God's way is said to have been found, His hiding-place failed.
I would say that if the majority of scientists are atheists. And the material world gives one no rational basis for theism. Then God is indeed hidden from rational man.
>>26312
Pretty much. It only has appeal within the Muslim world. And only in a few countries does it have enough popular support to even threaten taking power. Sure individual Islamists can carry out acts of violence anywhere in the world. But I don't believe that Islamism on a global scale offers an alternative ideology to liberalism.
Fukuyama addresses this in his book
https://books.google.com/books?id=NdFpQwKfX2IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fukuyama+end+of+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizioeg1cDNAhXEEJAKHRWhCGgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=islam%20appeal&f=false
Again, some would argue that Islamic terrorism in the 2000s is qualitative change from the 1990s in which Fukuyama was writing. But IMO his basic point still stands. And certainly the political appeal of Islamism to a minority within only a few undeveloped select countries in one region of the world, still applies.
Pretty much. It only has appeal within the Muslim world. And only in a few countries does it have enough popular support to even threaten taking power. Sure individual Islamists can carry out acts of violence anywhere in the world. But I don't believe that Islamism on a global scale offers an alternative ideology to liberalism.
Fukuyama addresses this in his book
https://books.google.com/books?id=NdFpQwKfX2IC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fukuyama+end+of+history&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizioeg1cDNAhXEEJAKHRWhCGgQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=islam%20appeal&f=false
Again, some would argue that Islamic terrorism in the 2000s is qualitative change from the 1990s in which Fukuyama was writing. But IMO his basic point still stands. And certainly the political appeal of Islamism to a minority within only a few undeveloped select countries in one region of the world, still applies.
Can someone help a Low IQ understand what the heck this is, and if it at all relates to wizardry?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudeism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dudeism
>>26409
It's a meme philosophy for norms who don't have ambition. The Dude only slightly resembles a wizard. The Big Lebowski is a pretty good movie though.
It's a meme philosophy for norms who don't have ambition. The Dude only slightly resembles a wizard. The Big Lebowski is a pretty good movie though.
What do you guys think about Quantum Theology?
My philosophy goes like this: Science explains how, but not why.
It's good that we got all this scientific knowledge, but you're still able to combine Religion and Science.
God may take influence in our world by exploiting the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.
physics.oregonstate.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/Quantum%20Mechanics%20and%20Theology.pdf
etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/33/33-4/33-4-pp477-487_JETS.pdf
thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5212Y.pdf
My philosophy goes like this: Science explains how, but not why.
It's good that we got all this scientific knowledge, but you're still able to combine Religion and Science.
God may take influence in our world by exploiting the indeterminism of quantum mechanics.
physics.oregonstate.edu/~stetza/COURSES/ph407h/Quantum%20Mechanics%20and%20Theology.pdf
etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/33/33-4/33-4-pp477-487_JETS.pdf
thedivineconspiracy.org/Z5212Y.pdf
This is a good book for getting started on Hegel, and connecting his abstract writings to concrete intellectual history.
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-xPoejl7ruL9jyW3_
Especially useful is the appendix starting on 261/277
Which outlines the entire Phenomenology of Spirit, connecting all the philosophical passages to the real world phenomena they are referring to.
https://archive.org/details/pdfy-xPoejl7ruL9jyW3_
Especially useful is the appendix starting on 261/277
Which outlines the entire Phenomenology of Spirit, connecting all the philosophical passages to the real world phenomena they are referring to.
File: 1469432845016-0.jpg (102.96 KB, 706x1080, 353:540, the science delusion.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Did Sheldrake debunk materialism?
sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf
sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/morphic1_paper.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=sm9eMYSYDcA
sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/explore-Materialism.2013.pdf
sheldrake.org/files/pdfs/papers/morphic1_paper.pdf
youtube.com/watch?v=sm9eMYSYDcA
I was reading a summary of Rawls' original position. And Rawls argues that in picking circumstances for ourselves it is rational to pick the choice whose worst circumstances are better than the worst of the other option.
For example its better to be born in 2000s rather than 1200s even if being born in the 1200 gives you the best case scenario of being Genghis Khan. The worst case scenario of being a victim of the Mongols makes it much worse than most of the bad things happening to most people in the 2000s.
This could help underlie some of the assumptions of anti-natalism. Because people claim that the asymmetry is unmerited. But if your standard is just the worst scenario of life vs the worst scenario of nonexistence. Clearly not being born is better.
But perhaps Rawls begs the same question as Benatar in assuming that avoiding the worst is more important than seeking the best. Its a low-risk low-reward rational approach to life. If you accept it, it makes a lot of sense. But not everyone does accept it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
For example its better to be born in 2000s rather than 1200s even if being born in the 1200 gives you the best case scenario of being Genghis Khan. The worst case scenario of being a victim of the Mongols makes it much worse than most of the bad things happening to most people in the 2000s.
This could help underlie some of the assumptions of anti-natalism. Because people claim that the asymmetry is unmerited. But if your standard is just the worst scenario of life vs the worst scenario of nonexistence. Clearly not being born is better.
But perhaps Rawls begs the same question as Benatar in assuming that avoiding the worst is more important than seeking the best. Its a low-risk low-reward rational approach to life. If you accept it, it makes a lot of sense. But not everyone does accept it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/original-position/
>>27486
I've studied German Idealism and the Young Hegelians a lot, so for me its interesting to situate Max in that historical context.
https://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mclellan
You can certainly see the Ego and its own, as a spoof or pastiche of the Hegelian Geist evolving through history from a primitive Oriental collectivist form to its highest form in western individuality. And that very much follows the path of the evolution of freedom found in Hegel's Philosophy of History.
I was able to dig up this old article I read, linking Stirner's method with the Phenomenology of Spirit
https://web.archive.org/web/20050215230645/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/maxundhegel.html
I've studied German Idealism and the Young Hegelians a lot, so for me its interesting to situate Max in that historical context.
https://libcom.org/history/stirner-feurbach-marx-young-hegelians-david-mclellan
You can certainly see the Ego and its own, as a spoof or pastiche of the Hegelian Geist evolving through history from a primitive Oriental collectivist form to its highest form in western individuality. And that very much follows the path of the evolution of freedom found in Hegel's Philosophy of History.
I was able to dig up this old article I read, linking Stirner's method with the Phenomenology of Spirit
https://web.archive.org/web/20050215230645/http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/maxundhegel.html
How do Atheist Wizards find meaning in life?
We can't fall back on the easy answers of God or afterlife.
Yet at the sametime the purely materialist Darwinist world of existing to spread selfish genes can't be our meaning either.
How do we create our own meaning?
We can't fall back on the easy answers of God or afterlife.
Yet at the sametime the purely materialist Darwinist world of existing to spread selfish genes can't be our meaning either.
How do we create our own meaning?
>>27803
>How do we create our own meaning?
what means the most to you?
what do you enjoy?
what interests you?
live your life for that purpose, and that is how you create meaning. isn't it enough? if you wanted to create your own meaning, then what other way is there?
>How do we create our own meaning?
what means the most to you?
what do you enjoy?
what interests you?
live your life for that purpose, and that is how you create meaning. isn't it enough? if you wanted to create your own meaning, then what other way is there?
>>25266
Why assume nothing is some kind of default state? Why can't there just be something?
Why assume nothing is some kind of default state? Why can't there just be something?
A rare version 1975 of The Grand Inquisitor from Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov produced by the Open University.
I'm sure most of you are aware of Nozick's experience machine. Its basically the Matrix, except the perfect fantasy utopia crafted for you personally.
Nozick assumes that a rational person would never choose this.
Now I know on Wizchan its overwhelmingly the opposite. So I ask are there any Wizards who would NOT go in the experience machine? For what reasons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
Nozick assumes that a rational person would never choose this.
Now I know on Wizchan its overwhelmingly the opposite. So I ask are there any Wizards who would NOT go in the experience machine? For what reasons?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine
>>28196
Does the very idea of needing a fully immersive 3d experience machine in the future perhaps overstate the need for reality? Who says it needs to be fully immersive? Perhaps HD video games have already achieved the experience machine, even if we are not literally inside them. Once one is fully engaged in a fantasy media, it doesn't matter that one is separated by a screen.
Does the very idea of needing a fully immersive 3d experience machine in the future perhaps overstate the need for reality? Who says it needs to be fully immersive? Perhaps HD video games have already achieved the experience machine, even if we are not literally inside them. Once one is fully engaged in a fantasy media, it doesn't matter that one is separated by a screen.
>>28209
It's easy. I eat 200 grams of rice per day, with some vegetables (got disgusted by pasta, as I've been eaten that for 3 years), and meat or fish when I can afford it. I drink about 1 litter of water, sometimes more. I sleep when I feel like sleeping. I entertain myself by listening to music, reading books, playing games, and studying History as an amateur (nothing really serious). Thankfully my only worry is the economical collapse of my country, and the gov stop paying my NEETbux, which as I see how the world is heading, inevitable.
You don't need meaning to live, do animals need meaning to live? I'm not sure if they think there is meaning in life, but I bet that live life without existential worries. All you need is food, water, and to sleep. But I know that's not the question you were asking.
So let's ask this again. How do you live without meaning?
I think that this question implies that living without meaning, purpose, is a dreadful experience. And I guess it is, since I think that I suffer from depression for like a decade, and still suffer from it (not that can certify it, since I've never met a Psy to diagnose it). But I'm just a particular case, and other might just be fine without meaning.
I believe that there is no meaning in life, and any meaning you can create is merely an illusion, a trick to make you feel good, or motivate and create a sense of duty to do thing. Strange thing for a nihilist to believe in something. All of this is pointless, as all thing will end, as nothing happened. Strange thing again to think for a nihilist, I'm starting to doubt my own nihilism.
So how do I live without meaning? As I think meaning don't exist, and can't be created, even by a god-like entity.
I just stop caring about myself and the rest. Just fulfill your basic physical need. And wait for death, or accelerate the dying process if you're in a hurry.
It's easy. I eat 200 grams of rice per day, with some vegetables (got disgusted by pasta, as I've been eaten that for 3 years), and meat or fish when I can afford it. I drink about 1 litter of water, sometimes more. I sleep when I feel like sleeping. I entertain myself by listening to music, reading books, playing games, and studying History as an amateur (nothing really serious). Thankfully my only worry is the economical collapse of my country, and the gov stop paying my NEETbux, which as I see how the world is heading, inevitable.
You don't need meaning to live, do animals need meaning to live? I'm not sure if they think there is meaning in life, but I bet that live life without existential worries. All you need is food, water, and to sleep. But I know that's not the question you were asking.
So let's ask this again. How do you live without meaning?
I think that this question implies that living without meaning, purpose, is a dreadful experience. And I guess it is, since I think that I suffer from depression for like a decade, and still suffer from it (not that can certify it, since I've never met a Psy to diagnose it). But I'm just a particular case, and other might just be fine without meaning.
I believe that there is no meaning in life, and any meaning you can create is merely an illusion, a trick to make you feel good, or motivate and create a sense of duty to do thing. Strange thing for a nihilist to believe in something. All of this is pointless, as all thing will end, as nothing happened. Strange thing again to think for a nihilist, I'm starting to doubt my own nihilism.
So how do I live without meaning? As I think meaning don't exist, and can't be created, even by a god-like entity.
I just stop caring about myself and the rest. Just fulfill your basic physical need. And wait for death, or accelerate the dying process if you're in a hurry.
>>28212
IDK if its so simple for Wizards to be simply biological animals, given the primary role assigned to sexual selection and gene propagation by biology.
I suppose a Wizard can be a 2nd level intellectually removed from biology. Understanding that intelligence, cognition and pleasure and pain receptacles are largely shaped by sexual selection, but that one can essentially "cheat the game" by enjoying evolved pleasures without following the instruction manual objective of having sex and reproducing.
Everytime a Normie uses birth control he is exploiting an evolutionary pleasure disconnecting it from its goal. Wizards just take it to the next level and subtract not just the final goal of reproduction but also the intermediate goal of sex.
IDK if its so simple for Wizards to be simply biological animals, given the primary role assigned to sexual selection and gene propagation by biology.
I suppose a Wizard can be a 2nd level intellectually removed from biology. Understanding that intelligence, cognition and pleasure and pain receptacles are largely shaped by sexual selection, but that one can essentially "cheat the game" by enjoying evolved pleasures without following the instruction manual objective of having sex and reproducing.
Everytime a Normie uses birth control he is exploiting an evolutionary pleasure disconnecting it from its goal. Wizards just take it to the next level and subtract not just the final goal of reproduction but also the intermediate goal of sex.
>>28209
This question doesn't even make sense to me. Why is it even assumed that a lack of meaning is a bad thing? It is freeing to not have a constraining goal to aim for.
This question doesn't even make sense to me. Why is it even assumed that a lack of meaning is a bad thing? It is freeing to not have a constraining goal to aim for.
Interesting article about how Crypto-Pagans snuck Neoplatonist ideas into Christianity during the last years of the classical age as a Trojan Horse, so that someday in better times, paganism could be revived.
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/research/centres/clarc/jlarc/contents/Lankila%20Corpus%20Areopagiticum.pdf
http://www.cardiff.ac.uk/share/research/centres/clarc/jlarc/contents/Lankila%20Corpus%20Areopagiticum.pdf
>>28825
You see, the idea of suicide is a ethical question. Ethics is all about the value one places on human life. Values can change based on one's past experiences and ideals. If someone wants to kill themselves, they place a negative value on their life. If you look at value as a mathematical value, a positive value means you want it, negative value means you are absolutely repulsed by it and want to get rid of it, and zero value means you don't care either way.
That is a possibility that the professor in that video did not consider. If you place a negative value on life, then literally living will take value from anything else that occurs in your life.
Now the question arises as to whether you can change the value one one has on their life. Empirical evidence would say yes (provided the person is conscious enough for this to happen), but there is just no guaranteed method to do so.
I wouldn't say having a doctor help someone kill themselves is suicide either. The doctor is killing the patient is murder, now other way of putting it. Asking someone who is employed in the business of saving lives to end one is a pretty tall order. No wonder the situation is a bit sticky.
You see, the idea of suicide is a ethical question. Ethics is all about the value one places on human life. Values can change based on one's past experiences and ideals. If someone wants to kill themselves, they place a negative value on their life. If you look at value as a mathematical value, a positive value means you want it, negative value means you are absolutely repulsed by it and want to get rid of it, and zero value means you don't care either way.
That is a possibility that the professor in that video did not consider. If you place a negative value on life, then literally living will take value from anything else that occurs in your life.
Now the question arises as to whether you can change the value one one has on their life. Empirical evidence would say yes (provided the person is conscious enough for this to happen), but there is just no guaranteed method to do so.
I wouldn't say having a doctor help someone kill themselves is suicide either. The doctor is killing the patient is murder, now other way of putting it. Asking someone who is employed in the business of saving lives to end one is a pretty tall order. No wonder the situation is a bit sticky.
>>28828
Do you think suicide can be as simple as utilitarian-hedonist calculus? Just count up the amount of pain and pleasure you are likely to experience in the future, and if the ratio is unsatisfactory then suicide is justified?
It is subjective because the cutoff of point of pain/pleasure is going to vary from person to person. Although there is still a "right" answer for each person, even understood subjectively.
For example when they say to normies "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem". Often times for Normies this is correct. Some Norm breaks up with his gf or fails a test and thinks his life is over. If he had waited a month, everything would be back to normal.
For someone else however, the most likely outcome of delaying suicide 10 years, could be laying sick and homeless on the streets. Or that same person might have won the lottery the day before committing suicide. Ultimately it comes down to probability. In that homelessness would be the much more likely outcome over lottery winning. Although we acknowledge that very unlikely events do happen.
Do you think suicide can be as simple as utilitarian-hedonist calculus? Just count up the amount of pain and pleasure you are likely to experience in the future, and if the ratio is unsatisfactory then suicide is justified?
It is subjective because the cutoff of point of pain/pleasure is going to vary from person to person. Although there is still a "right" answer for each person, even understood subjectively.
For example when they say to normies "suicide is a permanent solution to a temporary problem". Often times for Normies this is correct. Some Norm breaks up with his gf or fails a test and thinks his life is over. If he had waited a month, everything would be back to normal.
For someone else however, the most likely outcome of delaying suicide 10 years, could be laying sick and homeless on the streets. Or that same person might have won the lottery the day before committing suicide. Ultimately it comes down to probability. In that homelessness would be the much more likely outcome over lottery winning. Although we acknowledge that very unlikely events do happen.
>>28835
>Do you think suicide can be as simple as utilitarian-hedonist calculus? Just count up the amount of pain and pleasure you are likely to experience in the future, and if the ratio is unsatisfactory then suicide is justified?
To be rather blunt, yes. The hard thing is quantifing how much value one places on each individual case of pain and pleasure. However, I did not say suicide was justified. Quite the opposite, in fact. When I said:
>Now the question arises as to whether you can change the value one one has on their life. Empirical evidence would say yes (provided the person is conscious enough for this to happen), but there is just no guaranteed method to do so.
I was suggesting that suicide is not justified so long as you are conscious enough to make the decision for yourself. Why would one person be a special snowflake be the exception when so many others ( as you put it, "normies") were able to change the value they placed on their own life? If norm placed such a high positive value on his gf, what will prevent a wizard from placing the same value on some other aspect of his life, such as his ability to interact with other humans?
Anyway, going back to the main topic, I was using some rather basic concepts of philosophy to help answer the question. When it comes to evaluation, there are quite a few schools of thought, one not more valid than the other. I must say I subscribe to the postpositivist school (google it), which places a high value on the scientific method and emperical evidence. Basically, people who think like me will accept that there is an absolute truth that can only be revealed through evidence. So yes, I do believe that everything can be reduced to a simple process if we are able to figure out the underlying phenomena. However, your post highlights another school of thought, which is hermeneutics, where truth exists only when context is provided. Pertaining to our current discussion about suicide, anyone who follows this school of thought would say the desicion can be justified given one's life situation. While I do not subscribe to the the hermeneutic school of thought, I think this line of thinking helps with finding the absolute truth. There is also another school of though that is dependent on the other schools, IMO so I do not think it is relevant enough to mentions. They are literally the rebels without a cause who are constantly a fight against the man and I do not think it is relevant to the conversation about suicide.
>Do you think suicide can be as simple as utilitarian-hedonist calculus? Just count up the amount of pain and pleasure you are likely to experience in the future, and if the ratio is unsatisfactory then suicide is justified?
To be rather blunt, yes. The hard thing is quantifing how much value one places on each individual case of pain and pleasure. However, I did not say suicide was justified. Quite the opposite, in fact. When I said:
>Now the question arises as to whether you can change the value one one has on their life. Empirical evidence would say yes (provided the person is conscious enough for this to happen), but there is just no guaranteed method to do so.
I was suggesting that suicide is not justified so long as you are conscious enough to make the decision for yourself. Why would one person be a special snowflake be the exception when so many others ( as you put it, "normies") were able to change the value they placed on their own life? If norm placed such a high positive value on his gf, what will prevent a wizard from placing the same value on some other aspect of his life, such as his ability to interact with other humans?
Anyway, going back to the main topic, I was using some rather basic concepts of philosophy to help answer the question. When it comes to evaluation, there are quite a few schools of thought, one not more valid than the other. I must say I subscribe to the postpositivist school (google it), which places a high value on the scientific method and emperical evidence. Basically, people who think like me will accept that there is an absolute truth that can only be revealed through evidence. So yes, I do believe that everything can be reduced to a simple process if we are able to figure out the underlying phenomena. However, your post highlights another school of thought, which is hermeneutics, where truth exists only when context is provided. Pertaining to our current discussion about suicide, anyone who follows this school of thought would say the desicion can be justified given one's life situation. While I do not subscribe to the the hermeneutic school of thought, I think this line of thinking helps with finding the absolute truth. There is also another school of though that is dependent on the other schools, IMO so I do not think it is relevant enough to mentions. They are literally the rebels without a cause who are constantly a fight against the man and I do not think it is relevant to the conversation about suicide.
>>28836
>If norm placed such a high positive value on his gf, what will prevent a wizard from placing the same value on some other aspect of his life, such as his ability to interact with other humans?
I don't want to put all Wizards into the same category. There are some Volcels living great fulfilling lives.
But then there are other NEETs essentially living zombie-like existences. No hopes or prospects for the future. Precarious economic situation. No ability to interact with people in either a social or professional environment. No hobbies to provide sufficient escapism. A worldview that sees the world and life as an evil place.
A person like that doesn't have much to value. And wait 1 month or 10 years, things will just go from bad to worse.
In other words the Norm who just had the breakup, hates that specific event in his life. So it would be stupid to throw away a thing he values (life) on account of one point on the timeline of life.
But others in more dire positions, might have almost no positive memories, no hopes, and so they hate the whole timeline of their life, past, present, future and want to throw the whole thing away.
>If norm placed such a high positive value on his gf, what will prevent a wizard from placing the same value on some other aspect of his life, such as his ability to interact with other humans?
I don't want to put all Wizards into the same category. There are some Volcels living great fulfilling lives.
But then there are other NEETs essentially living zombie-like existences. No hopes or prospects for the future. Precarious economic situation. No ability to interact with people in either a social or professional environment. No hobbies to provide sufficient escapism. A worldview that sees the world and life as an evil place.
A person like that doesn't have much to value. And wait 1 month or 10 years, things will just go from bad to worse.
In other words the Norm who just had the breakup, hates that specific event in his life. So it would be stupid to throw away a thing he values (life) on account of one point on the timeline of life.
But others in more dire positions, might have almost no positive memories, no hopes, and so they hate the whole timeline of their life, past, present, future and want to throw the whole thing away.
>>28836
>I was suggesting that suicide is not justified so long as you are conscious enough to make the decision for yourself. Why would one person be a special snowflake be the exception when so many others ( as you put it, "normies") were able to change the value they placed on their own life?
I was listening to a lecture on Seneca, updated Stoicism for a modern audience.
And one of the advices on seeing whether a goal was reasonable or not was to look probablistically at how an average person in your situation would fare.
I think that is a good way of looking at it, because it takes away much of the bias at personalizing it. When one introspectively looks into ones own life, one overvalues the role of the individual and the power of choices and decisions to change the situation.
If instead of looking at me, I look at Mr.X who has all the same attributes as me. Suddenly Mr.X getting that job looks a lot less likely. Do most people like Mr.X succeed in that field? Obviously not.
Most people see themselves as special snowflakes in the opposite direction. They think they will succeed where a typical person will fail.
I suppose you're turning it around and saying suicidal people are special snowflakes in thinking their life can't be recovered, when most people in their situation would. I agree thats clearly the case for most Norms reaction to discrete events.
But for people who want to throw out not a point in their life, but their entire timeline, I think its less likely that the average man in such a situation would have any reasonable expectation of recovery to a "life worth living".
>I was suggesting that suicide is not justified so long as you are conscious enough to make the decision for yourself. Why would one person be a special snowflake be the exception when so many others ( as you put it, "normies") were able to change the value they placed on their own life?
I was listening to a lecture on Seneca, updated Stoicism for a modern audience.
And one of the advices on seeing whether a goal was reasonable or not was to look probablistically at how an average person in your situation would fare.
I think that is a good way of looking at it, because it takes away much of the bias at personalizing it. When one introspectively looks into ones own life, one overvalues the role of the individual and the power of choices and decisions to change the situation.
If instead of looking at me, I look at Mr.X who has all the same attributes as me. Suddenly Mr.X getting that job looks a lot less likely. Do most people like Mr.X succeed in that field? Obviously not.
Most people see themselves as special snowflakes in the opposite direction. They think they will succeed where a typical person will fail.
I suppose you're turning it around and saying suicidal people are special snowflakes in thinking their life can't be recovered, when most people in their situation would. I agree thats clearly the case for most Norms reaction to discrete events.
But for people who want to throw out not a point in their life, but their entire timeline, I think its less likely that the average man in such a situation would have any reasonable expectation of recovery to a "life worth living".
>>28838
>But then there are other NEETs essentially living zombie-like existences. No hopes or prospects for the future. Precarious economic situation. No ability to interact with people in either a social or professional environment. No hobbies to provide sufficient escapism. A worldview that sees the world and life as an evil place.
The problem is that one has to literally have to place a value on *something* in life to feel that he is worthless. Once a value is assigned to anything, you will fall into the logic of my previous post. The only problem is figuring out a method that guarantees you to basically land in a net positive (or maybe zero) value in life.
>>28839
Taking away bias is always good, but it is nearly impossible for one to make a purely impartial decision. We will almost always weigh our decisions based on past life experiences and whatever training we underwent. How can you evaluate a hypothetical individual who is in the same exact situation as yourself without using your own past life experiences to make the decision? I mean, one day I would say someone who ate an entire large pizza by himself is a piece of shit, but antoehr day I would say he deserves it. It depends on my mood, doesn't it? In terms of pure logic, I would argue that anyone could slightly improve their life situations due to the amount of variables that we can change. If you like masturbating, your life situation improves if you find a way to masturbate more. The problem is that we are not logical creatures and emotions play a heavy role in most, if not all, of our decisions.
Based on my own personal research (I am a CS graduate student who is doing heavy research on emotions in A.I.), I must concede that emotions do lead to efficient decisions, even if the reasoning behind a certain descision is not clear. The shitty thing about someone deciding to killing themself is a emotional decision. It is extremely hard to evaluate emotional decisions if you cannot evaluate the result. If someone deices to off themselves and succeds, there i sno possible way to know if their life would be better or not. Suicide is literally a gamble that is impossible to win because the result is never revealed. I think suicide is a unique thing to humans, though. I cannot see an A.I agent deciding to off itself, but then again I do have my inherent bias, which is why I said all schools of philosophical thought are important, no matter how shit I think they are. Checks and balances and all that.
>But then there are other NEETs essentially living zombie-like existences. No hopes or prospects for the future. Precarious economic situation. No ability to interact with people in either a social or professional environment. No hobbies to provide sufficient escapism. A worldview that sees the world and life as an evil place.
The problem is that one has to literally have to place a value on *something* in life to feel that he is worthless. Once a value is assigned to anything, you will fall into the logic of my previous post. The only problem is figuring out a method that guarantees you to basically land in a net positive (or maybe zero) value in life.
>>28839
Taking away bias is always good, but it is nearly impossible for one to make a purely impartial decision. We will almost always weigh our decisions based on past life experiences and whatever training we underwent. How can you evaluate a hypothetical individual who is in the same exact situation as yourself without using your own past life experiences to make the decision? I mean, one day I would say someone who ate an entire large pizza by himself is a piece of shit, but antoehr day I would say he deserves it. It depends on my mood, doesn't it? In terms of pure logic, I would argue that anyone could slightly improve their life situations due to the amount of variables that we can change. If you like masturbating, your life situation improves if you find a way to masturbate more. The problem is that we are not logical creatures and emotions play a heavy role in most, if not all, of our decisions.
Based on my own personal research (I am a CS graduate student who is doing heavy research on emotions in A.I.), I must concede that emotions do lead to efficient decisions, even if the reasoning behind a certain descision is not clear. The shitty thing about someone deciding to killing themself is a emotional decision. It is extremely hard to evaluate emotional decisions if you cannot evaluate the result. If someone deices to off themselves and succeds, there i sno possible way to know if their life would be better or not. Suicide is literally a gamble that is impossible to win because the result is never revealed. I think suicide is a unique thing to humans, though. I cannot see an A.I agent deciding to off itself, but then again I do have my inherent bias, which is why I said all schools of philosophical thought are important, no matter how shit I think they are. Checks and balances and all that.
>>28840
Just so I'm clear I'm understanding you, you believe that suicide is always or nearly always a miscalculation in value-judgement for if properly considered all men would realize there is net value in their life worth living for?
Just so I'm clear I'm understanding you, you believe that suicide is always or nearly always a miscalculation in value-judgement for if properly considered all men would realize there is net value in their life worth living for?
File: 1473227063765.jpg (100.15 KB, 1600x818, 800:409, Untitled-1.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>28841
I wouldn't say it is a miscalculation in judgment. If you assign a numerical value to the emotional value of every aspect of your life, the end overall life value would be the sum of all of these. If the net value is negative, you may consider suicide past a certain negative threshold. This is similar to the video posted earlier, where the professor drew a graph of bad and good in life. However, I would say it is not a matter the area under the graph but rather how one feels from moment to moment. A young man can be loving his life for years and then decide to kill himself from one event (don't take my word for it, I would search for sources about this, I'm too lazy to search on my own). This is not an area under curve measurement but rather an instantaneous value where the suicide threshold has been breached. If you ain't following me, my attached graph with my shitty handwriting kinda shows what I mean. If you look at the point before the Chad considered suicide, he had a positive area under the curve, he did nothing more than pass the negative threshold.
What I am saying is that there appears to be a way for any man to find a way to see that life is worth living. The problem is figuring out what that man wants to continue living for.
I wouldn't say it is a miscalculation in judgment. If you assign a numerical value to the emotional value of every aspect of your life, the end overall life value would be the sum of all of these. If the net value is negative, you may consider suicide past a certain negative threshold. This is similar to the video posted earlier, where the professor drew a graph of bad and good in life. However, I would say it is not a matter the area under the graph but rather how one feels from moment to moment. A young man can be loving his life for years and then decide to kill himself from one event (don't take my word for it, I would search for sources about this, I'm too lazy to search on my own). This is not an area under curve measurement but rather an instantaneous value where the suicide threshold has been breached. If you ain't following me, my attached graph with my shitty handwriting kinda shows what I mean. If you look at the point before the Chad considered suicide, he had a positive area under the curve, he did nothing more than pass the negative threshold.
What I am saying is that there appears to be a way for any man to find a way to see that life is worth living. The problem is figuring out what that man wants to continue living for.
>>28842
What about people who hate not a specific point in their life but the entire timeline? Past, present and prospective future.
What about people who hate not a specific point in their life but the entire timeline? Past, present and prospective future.
>>28847
Need evidence. Know of any cases where someone was suicidal, or severely depressed for a long time and then had a positive recovery? I'm sure a psychiatrist would be able to answer this.
Need evidence. Know of any cases where someone was suicidal, or severely depressed for a long time and then had a positive recovery? I'm sure a psychiatrist would be able to answer this.
>>28858
Isn't this just reverse anti-natalism?
Anti-natalists say even if the people think they are happy and want to be born, really if they were rational they wouldn't want to be born.
And you are basically saying if suicidal people were rational they would always realize they want to live.
Isn't this just reverse anti-natalism?
Anti-natalists say even if the people think they are happy and want to be born, really if they were rational they wouldn't want to be born.
And you are basically saying if suicidal people were rational they would always realize they want to live.
>>28860
I don't understand that. If someone had a life full of pleasure why wouldn't they want to be born? Even if they are aware of their death and the pleasure would end, not being born will rob them of the extreme pleasure they experienced.
I don't understand that. If someone had a life full of pleasure why wouldn't they want to be born? Even if they are aware of their death and the pleasure would end, not being born will rob them of the extreme pleasure they experienced.
File: 1473291517553.pdf (1.31 MB, (The Routledge Philosopher….pdf)
A biography of Adorno's ideas.
The second chapter is of special relevance; particularly the understanding between the relationship of the individual to their social system and its determining qualities.
>This retard's monologue on the circumscription of life's inherent value
Unironically kill yourself
The second chapter is of special relevance; particularly the understanding between the relationship of the individual to their social system and its determining qualities.
>This retard's monologue on the circumscription of life's inherent value
Unironically kill yourself
>>28873
Schopenhauer and Adorno on Bodily Suffering: A Comparative Analysis
https://books.google.com/books?id=M8kaBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Schopenhauer and Adorno on Bodily Suffering: A Comparative Analysis
https://books.google.com/books?id=M8kaBgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false
Searching for some philosophical views on celibacy, unfortunately both negative-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publicity/#1.3.1
Sidgwick objects to celibacy on Kantian grounds, that if universalized it would exterminate the human race.
Although of course Kant himself was a celibate
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-moral/#RusHumWobHumSocEthPol
Russell objects to celibacy on Humean grounds, that if an impartial spectator could watch the movie or TV series of our lives, they would be very bored by it.
Although of course Hume himself was a celibate.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-moral/#RusHumWobHumSocEthPol
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/publicity/#1.3.1
Sidgwick objects to celibacy on Kantian grounds, that if universalized it would exterminate the human race.
Although of course Kant himself was a celibate
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-moral/#RusHumWobHumSocEthPol
Russell objects to celibacy on Humean grounds, that if an impartial spectator could watch the movie or TV series of our lives, they would be very bored by it.
Although of course Hume himself was a celibate.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-moral/#RusHumWobHumSocEthPol
Can we discuss the concept of reincarnation from the perspective of philosophy of mind?
I know some on Wizchan believe in reincarnation or at least consider it.
What does it mean to say that a soul-self-ego-spirit-personality survives in a disembodied form to be reconstituted in a new biological life? What is the Soul-Ego with all of its particularities stripped away? What is the self without genes, memories, parents, body, abilities, skills, life-history, experiences, race, class, nation, historicity, language?
I know some on Wizchan believe in reincarnation or at least consider it.
What does it mean to say that a soul-self-ego-spirit-personality survives in a disembodied form to be reconstituted in a new biological life? What is the Soul-Ego with all of its particularities stripped away? What is the self without genes, memories, parents, body, abilities, skills, life-history, experiences, race, class, nation, historicity, language?
>>29004
What is the nature of reincarnation?
I see normies comparing pics of celebs to historical figures and calling that "reincarnation". As though physical resemblance counts, and that is purely biological, genetic, phenotypical process. In that sense anyone with similar genotypes and phenotypes is a "reincarnation". Even if they are not directly related.
Then there is personality. Sure you could find some awkward, autistic 17th century Russian peasant. Am I his reincarnation? In the year 2040 they'll be some awkward aspie around, who might hide in his room all day listening to lectures. Is he my reincarnation? What if he was born yesterday?
Basing it on looks is stupid, thats just phenotype. But more serious reincarnation is based on personality, and thats just phenotype in a way too. Basically take anyone from history past or future and give him aspergers and you can call him my reincarnation.
I guess in a philosophical sense you can say that types and classes exist independent of the individual. So even if I die, it wont be the death of the awkward aspie male as a type. But that kid doesn't have to be born the day I die, he can be born 5 years before I die.
Anyway I think reincarnation is stupid. Some have brought out that there are a lot more souls around today than in 500AD. In that sense the majority of people would be "new souls". But on a more philosophical level, I question what it means to have a soul without memory and body. In this post I've explored why looks and personality are bad measures for reincarnation.
What is the nature of reincarnation?
I see normies comparing pics of celebs to historical figures and calling that "reincarnation". As though physical resemblance counts, and that is purely biological, genetic, phenotypical process. In that sense anyone with similar genotypes and phenotypes is a "reincarnation". Even if they are not directly related.
Then there is personality. Sure you could find some awkward, autistic 17th century Russian peasant. Am I his reincarnation? In the year 2040 they'll be some awkward aspie around, who might hide in his room all day listening to lectures. Is he my reincarnation? What if he was born yesterday?
Basing it on looks is stupid, thats just phenotype. But more serious reincarnation is based on personality, and thats just phenotype in a way too. Basically take anyone from history past or future and give him aspergers and you can call him my reincarnation.
I guess in a philosophical sense you can say that types and classes exist independent of the individual. So even if I die, it wont be the death of the awkward aspie male as a type. But that kid doesn't have to be born the day I die, he can be born 5 years before I die.
Anyway I think reincarnation is stupid. Some have brought out that there are a lot more souls around today than in 500AD. In that sense the majority of people would be "new souls". But on a more philosophical level, I question what it means to have a soul without memory and body. In this post I've explored why looks and personality are bad measures for reincarnation.
so, there's some philosophy for anxiety, insecurity, morals and character or, in short sentence, wizard?
its cool if it is some famous author that can be find in others lenguajes. I finished "the art of being happy" of Schopenhauer, very useful.
I think nietzsche can help, but i dont understand him
its cool if it is some famous author that can be find in others lenguajes. I finished "the art of being happy" of Schopenhauer, very useful.
I think nietzsche can help, but i dont understand him
>>29187
Well Angst is just the German word for anxiety. So the whole Existentialist philosophy really. Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
For a more self-help approach to anxiety the Stoics are good. Hegel sees the Skeptics as the dialectical completion of Stoicism. For the Stoics tell you to see anxiety and the bad things in life as unreal. The Skeptics tell you to see everything as unreal or at least maybe unreal. And maybe that epistemological detachment from hard reality can help calm your nerves.
Well Angst is just the German word for anxiety. So the whole Existentialist philosophy really. Kierkegaard and Heidegger.
For a more self-help approach to anxiety the Stoics are good. Hegel sees the Skeptics as the dialectical completion of Stoicism. For the Stoics tell you to see anxiety and the bad things in life as unreal. The Skeptics tell you to see everything as unreal or at least maybe unreal. And maybe that epistemological detachment from hard reality can help calm your nerves.
File: 1474104962305.png (544.35 KB, 500x700, 5:7, 1470118215124.png) ImgOps iqdb
Don't suppose anyone wants to start a reading group
Continental Philosophy has become a sort of poetry for me. It doesn't serve any purpose or utility for me, and sometimes I'm not even following the arguments at hand. I'm more luxuriating in the beauty of language. It soothes me. Lets me escape from the brute material world. In this sense it serve the same function for me as classical music or poetry does for others.
File: 1474672422532.jpg (105.15 KB, 775x706, 775:706, knowledge_kant.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Do you think "analytic a posteriori" propositions can be possible?
>>25265
Yeah I had read before the existentialists could help with that, just not know where to start. Now that you mention that guy I guess I'll start him.
Sorry if late in responding, I feel overwhelmed many times.
Yeah I had read before the existentialists could help with that, just not know where to start. Now that you mention that guy I guess I'll start him.
Sorry if late in responding, I feel overwhelmed many times.
>>29434
Wikiquote has a great summary of Kierkegaard's works. And he was someone who voluntarily chose to abandon the chance at a normie life to become a Wizardly Hermit. His entire philosophy is a Wizard looking in at Normie ways. And his religious critique of Christianity was that it had decayed from being a sect for Wizards, outcasts, hermits and saints to bourgeois Normies who show up on Sunday in their best suit.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard
Wikiquote has a great summary of Kierkegaard's works. And he was someone who voluntarily chose to abandon the chance at a normie life to become a Wizardly Hermit. His entire philosophy is a Wizard looking in at Normie ways. And his religious critique of Christianity was that it had decayed from being a sect for Wizards, outcasts, hermits and saints to bourgeois Normies who show up on Sunday in their best suit.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/S%C3%B8ren_Kierkegaard
Some Existentialist writings here-
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/index.htm
This book finally helped me make sense of German Idealism, Hegel and 19th Century philosophy
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/reason/index.htm
Nice library of primary sources
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm
Hegel’s Critics from 1800s to 2001
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_other.htm
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/index.htm
This book finally helped me make sense of German Idealism, Hegel and 19th Century philosophy
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/marcuse/works/reason/index.htm
Nice library of primary sources
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/index.htm
Hegel’s Critics from 1800s to 2001
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/li_other.htm
Feeling like sharing this with you guys, my mega folder where I collect philosophy related PDFs.
Contains all works of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer & Kant
Contains a lot of philosophy related Oxford Handbooks
..and a bunch of articles I collected over the years
https://mega.nz/#F!MQBRHBJA!L_on3h-XUrtbc719UaMygw
Contains all works of Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Schopenhauer & Kant
Contains a lot of philosophy related Oxford Handbooks
..and a bunch of articles I collected over the years
https://mega.nz/#F!MQBRHBJA!L_on3h-XUrtbc719UaMygw
>>29707
Do you have anything to say on the topic of Analytic Philosophy?
I think more on Wizchan are drawn towards angsty Continental Philosophy finding the meaning of life, myself included. But I can appreciate the intense logical vigor of Analytic philosophy and in some ways like Scholastic logic it is more removed from the hubub of human life, which is a plus for me. I used to have a strong distaste of Analytic philosophy, as an anti-philosophy. Philosophy for the rich uncle who says don't be a philosophy major. Although I have to commend the humbleness of becoming a philosophy major, when you believe you are not the Emperor of Thought, but just a janitor for scientists. I took an Analytic philosophy class on epistemology with John Norman of the Gor scifi series and he called Analytic philosophy real philosophy somewhat jokingly. But I couldn't see it since AP seemed to be the rejection of everything philosophers had been doing since Plato on.
Certainly the work of Benatar is proof that Analytic philosophy can take on issues of importance to Wizards. And he even coined the term analytic existentialism to describe it.
Do you have anything to say on the topic of Analytic Philosophy?
I think more on Wizchan are drawn towards angsty Continental Philosophy finding the meaning of life, myself included. But I can appreciate the intense logical vigor of Analytic philosophy and in some ways like Scholastic logic it is more removed from the hubub of human life, which is a plus for me. I used to have a strong distaste of Analytic philosophy, as an anti-philosophy. Philosophy for the rich uncle who says don't be a philosophy major. Although I have to commend the humbleness of becoming a philosophy major, when you believe you are not the Emperor of Thought, but just a janitor for scientists. I took an Analytic philosophy class on epistemology with John Norman of the Gor scifi series and he called Analytic philosophy real philosophy somewhat jokingly. But I couldn't see it since AP seemed to be the rejection of everything philosophers had been doing since Plato on.
Certainly the work of Benatar is proof that Analytic philosophy can take on issues of importance to Wizards. And he even coined the term analytic existentialism to describe it.
nalytic Existentialism was the topic of a conference in South Africa in 2001, where it was described as:
>Description:
>Although "existentialism" is more commonly associated with Continental philosophy (not least because the term was coined in that context), analytic philosophers have also grappled with questions which can be termed "existential". These include (but are not restricted to) questions about the meaning of life and whether human existence is absurd, the nature of death and whether it is to be feared, the significance or otherwise of suffering, whether human nature is fundamentally evil, good or neutral, and about the relative merits of optimism and pessimism. This conference will focus on existential questions, broadly construed, but approached via the methodologies of analytic philosophy.
Benatar gives a good summary of analytic existentialism in his http://books.google.com/books?id=09weczeYoEsC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22analytic+existentialism%22&source=bl&ots=1Z1emYlB-y&sig=zJBplTXpWvMryJ99IHvB-j6xI30&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c8IwUYvpF8ms0AHb04CYBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=true , where he calls it "thinking clearly about the big questions."
Analytic Existentialism responds to the limitations of both schools, by applying Analytic clarity to Continental problems. At its worst extreme- Analytic philosophy applies meaningful terms to meaningless problems, while Continentals apply meaningless terms to meaningful problems. The proper aim of philosophy ought to be to apply meaningful terms to meaningful problems. A logical and precise analysis of the Meaning of Life and Death and the purpose of existence.
David Benatar's anti-natalist book Better Never to Have Been is probably the best example of Analytic Existentialism in action. I think he owes much to Arthur Schopenhauer, who despite being generally considered Continental was a major influence on Wittgenstein, and had a quasi-Analytic disdain for Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling's tortured language.
EM Cioran nicely captured the spirit of Analytic Existentialism in this interview:
>For example, when speaking about death,
Heidegger employs so complicated a language to say very
simple things that I well understand how one could be
tempted by his style. But the danger of philosophical style
is that one loses complete contact with reality. Philosophical language leads to megalomania. One creates an
artificial world where one is God. I was very proud and
pleased when I was young to know this jargon. But my
stay in France totally cured me of that. I'm not a philosopher by profession, I'm not a philosopher at all, but
my path was the reverse of Sartre's. That's why I turned
to the French writers known as the moralists, such as La
Rochefoucauld or Chamfort, who wrote for society ladies
and whose style was simple, but who said very profound
things.
>Description:
>Although "existentialism" is more commonly associated with Continental philosophy (not least because the term was coined in that context), analytic philosophers have also grappled with questions which can be termed "existential". These include (but are not restricted to) questions about the meaning of life and whether human existence is absurd, the nature of death and whether it is to be feared, the significance or otherwise of suffering, whether human nature is fundamentally evil, good or neutral, and about the relative merits of optimism and pessimism. This conference will focus on existential questions, broadly construed, but approached via the methodologies of analytic philosophy.
Benatar gives a good summary of analytic existentialism in his http://books.google.com/books?id=09weczeYoEsC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=%22analytic+existentialism%22&source=bl&ots=1Z1emYlB-y&sig=zJBplTXpWvMryJ99IHvB-j6xI30&hl=en&sa=X&ei=c8IwUYvpF8ms0AHb04CYBQ&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&q&f=true , where he calls it "thinking clearly about the big questions."
Analytic Existentialism responds to the limitations of both schools, by applying Analytic clarity to Continental problems. At its worst extreme- Analytic philosophy applies meaningful terms to meaningless problems, while Continentals apply meaningless terms to meaningful problems. The proper aim of philosophy ought to be to apply meaningful terms to meaningful problems. A logical and precise analysis of the Meaning of Life and Death and the purpose of existence.
David Benatar's anti-natalist book Better Never to Have Been is probably the best example of Analytic Existentialism in action. I think he owes much to Arthur Schopenhauer, who despite being generally considered Continental was a major influence on Wittgenstein, and had a quasi-Analytic disdain for Hegel, Fichte, and Schelling's tortured language.
EM Cioran nicely captured the spirit of Analytic Existentialism in this interview:
>For example, when speaking about death,
Heidegger employs so complicated a language to say very
simple things that I well understand how one could be
tempted by his style. But the danger of philosophical style
is that one loses complete contact with reality. Philosophical language leads to megalomania. One creates an
artificial world where one is God. I was very proud and
pleased when I was young to know this jargon. But my
stay in France totally cured me of that. I'm not a philosopher by profession, I'm not a philosopher at all, but
my path was the reverse of Sartre's. That's why I turned
to the French writers known as the moralists, such as La
Rochefoucauld or Chamfort, who wrote for society ladies
and whose style was simple, but who said very profound
things.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl554.htm#HL2_558
https://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/
I'm reading Hegel on causality. He has some insightful ideas about the dialectical relations of cause and effect.
>If, for example, a man developed his talent in circumstances arising from the loss of his father who was hit by a bullet in battle, then this shot (or still further back, the war or a cause of the war, and so on to infinity) could be assigned as the cause of the man's skill. But it is clear that the shot, for example, is not by itself this cause, but only the combination of it with other effective determinations. Or rather, it is not cause at all but only a single moment which belonged to the circumstances of the possibility.
Like how Bruce Wayne developed his skills because his father was shot. Was the killing of his parents the cause of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman? In one sense Hegel, agrees that it was. But there are many orphans by murder who do not become Batman. The circumstances of possibility matter as well. Such as Bruce's personality and superhuman aptitude. His incredible wealth.
>In this multiplication of causes which have entered between that fact and the ultimate effect, the former is at the same time connected with other things and circumstances, so that the complete effect is contained, not in that first term which was pronounced to be the cause, but only in these several causes together.
Hegel disagrees with the idea of contingency in history, those alternate histories of "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost"
>It has become a common jest in history to let great effects arise from small causes and to cite as the primary cause of a comprehensive and profound event an anecdote. Such a so-called cause is to be regarded as nothing more than an occasion, an external stimulus, of which the inner spirit of the event had no need, or could have used a countless host of other such in order to begin from them in the sphere of Appearance, to disengage itself and give itself manifestation.
>The reverse rather is true, namely, that such a petty and contingent circumstance is the occasion of the event only because the latter has determined it to be such.
>Consequently, though of history which makes a huge shape spring from a slender stalk is ingenious, it is an extremely superficial treatment. It is true that in this process of a great event arising out of a small circumstance we have an instance of the conversion which spirit imposes on the external; but for this very reason, this external is not cause in the process, in other words, this conversion itself sublates the relationship of causality.
https://autio.github.io/projects/scienceoflogic/
I'm reading Hegel on causality. He has some insightful ideas about the dialectical relations of cause and effect.
>If, for example, a man developed his talent in circumstances arising from the loss of his father who was hit by a bullet in battle, then this shot (or still further back, the war or a cause of the war, and so on to infinity) could be assigned as the cause of the man's skill. But it is clear that the shot, for example, is not by itself this cause, but only the combination of it with other effective determinations. Or rather, it is not cause at all but only a single moment which belonged to the circumstances of the possibility.
Like how Bruce Wayne developed his skills because his father was shot. Was the killing of his parents the cause of Bruce Wayne becoming Batman? In one sense Hegel, agrees that it was. But there are many orphans by murder who do not become Batman. The circumstances of possibility matter as well. Such as Bruce's personality and superhuman aptitude. His incredible wealth.
>In this multiplication of causes which have entered between that fact and the ultimate effect, the former is at the same time connected with other things and circumstances, so that the complete effect is contained, not in that first term which was pronounced to be the cause, but only in these several causes together.
Hegel disagrees with the idea of contingency in history, those alternate histories of "for want of a nail, the kingdom was lost"
>It has become a common jest in history to let great effects arise from small causes and to cite as the primary cause of a comprehensive and profound event an anecdote. Such a so-called cause is to be regarded as nothing more than an occasion, an external stimulus, of which the inner spirit of the event had no need, or could have used a countless host of other such in order to begin from them in the sphere of Appearance, to disengage itself and give itself manifestation.
>The reverse rather is true, namely, that such a petty and contingent circumstance is the occasion of the event only because the latter has determined it to be such.
>Consequently, though of history which makes a huge shape spring from a slender stalk is ingenious, it is an extremely superficial treatment. It is true that in this process of a great event arising out of a small circumstance we have an instance of the conversion which spirit imposes on the external; but for this very reason, this external is not cause in the process, in other words, this conversion itself sublates the relationship of causality.
File: 1477932825791.jpg (233.2 KB, 940x828, 235:207, me on the left.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>25356
Where does National Socialism fall in this as an ideology?
Where does National Socialism fall in this as an ideology?
>>30390
IDK but if you're seriously interested in the topic, this book is about the philosophical influences on National Socialism
https://books.google.com/books?id=KKTnhiYfBhwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hitler+philosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE5MrQwYXQAhWK14MKHTMfAl4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=schopenhauer&f=false
IDK but if you're seriously interested in the topic, this book is about the philosophical influences on National Socialism
https://books.google.com/books?id=KKTnhiYfBhwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hitler+philosophy&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiE5MrQwYXQAhWK14MKHTMfAl4Q6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=schopenhauer&f=false
>>30390
Theism. National Socialism is a religion, after all if you replace the word "God" with "State/Nation" you get NatSoc.
Theism. National Socialism is a religion, after all if you replace the word "God" with "State/Nation" you get NatSoc.
>>30392
Although Eichmann defended his Nazi actions by appealing to Kantianism, which is also on that chart
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-105-04.html
Judge Raveh: I shall ask you a few questions in German. Do you remember at one point in your police interrogation talking about the Kantian imperative, and saying that throughout your entire life you had tried to live according to the Kantian imperative?
Accused: Yes.
Q. There is no need to show this to you; do you remember it clearly?
A. Yes, I remember it clearly.
Q. What did you mean by the Kantian imperative when you said that?
A. I meant by this that the principle of my volition and the principle of my life must be such that it could at any time be raised to be the principle of general legislation, as Kant more or less puts it in his categorical imperative.
Q. I see, therefore, that when you said this you were precisely aware of Kant's categorical imperative?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And so, do you mean to say by this that your activities in the course of deporting Jews corresponded to the Kantian categorical imperative?
A. No, certainly not, because these activities…at that time I had to live and act under compulsion, and the compulsion of a third person, during exceptional times. I meant by this, by the…by this living according to the Kantian principle, to the extent that I am my own master and able to organize my life according to my volition and according to my wishes. This is also quite obvious, in fact it could not be meant any other way, because if I am subjected to a higher power and a higher force, then my free will as such is eliminated, and then, since I can no longer be master of my free will and volition, I cannot in fact adopt any principles whatsoever which I cannot influence, but, on the contrary, I must, and also may, build obedience to the authorities into this concept, and then the authorities bear the responsibility. In my judgment, that also belongs to it.
Q. Do you mean to say by this that following the authorities' orders blindly signifies realizing the Kantian categorical imperative?
A. Since the Kantian imperative was laid down, there had never been such a destructive and unprecedented order from a head of state. That is why it was new, and that is why there is no possibility of comparisons, and no…one cannot have any idea of how it was. There was the War. I had to do just one thing. I had to obey, because I could not change anything. And so I just placed my life, as far as I could, in the service - I would put it this way - of this Kantian demand. And I have already said that in fact others had to answer for the fundamental aspect. As a minor recipient of orders, I had to obey, I could not evade that.
Q. I understood from the first part of your answer that you meant that these years in which you were a blind recipient of orders would be excluded from life according to the Kantian imperative. And I intended to ask you about this, from when till when did it last? But then you added something, and that again changed the whole thing. Now I do not know what your final position is on this.
A. Killing people violently cannot be according to the spirit of the Kantian imperative, because in principle it is not something God-given.
Q. That means that there was a time when you did not live by the categorical imperative?
A. Could not live, because higher powers made it impossible for me to live by it.
Q. From when to when was this?
A. Strictly speaking, that was from the moment when I was transferred against my will, and against my wishes, to Berlin.
Q. Till when?
A. Until the end.
Although Eichmann defended his Nazi actions by appealing to Kantianism, which is also on that chart
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/e/eichmann-adolf/transcripts/Sessions/Session-105-04.html
Judge Raveh: I shall ask you a few questions in German. Do you remember at one point in your police interrogation talking about the Kantian imperative, and saying that throughout your entire life you had tried to live according to the Kantian imperative?
Accused: Yes.
Q. There is no need to show this to you; do you remember it clearly?
A. Yes, I remember it clearly.
Q. What did you mean by the Kantian imperative when you said that?
A. I meant by this that the principle of my volition and the principle of my life must be such that it could at any time be raised to be the principle of general legislation, as Kant more or less puts it in his categorical imperative.
Q. I see, therefore, that when you said this you were precisely aware of Kant's categorical imperative?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. And so, do you mean to say by this that your activities in the course of deporting Jews corresponded to the Kantian categorical imperative?
A. No, certainly not, because these activities…at that time I had to live and act under compulsion, and the compulsion of a third person, during exceptional times. I meant by this, by the…by this living according to the Kantian principle, to the extent that I am my own master and able to organize my life according to my volition and according to my wishes. This is also quite obvious, in fact it could not be meant any other way, because if I am subjected to a higher power and a higher force, then my free will as such is eliminated, and then, since I can no longer be master of my free will and volition, I cannot in fact adopt any principles whatsoever which I cannot influence, but, on the contrary, I must, and also may, build obedience to the authorities into this concept, and then the authorities bear the responsibility. In my judgment, that also belongs to it.
Q. Do you mean to say by this that following the authorities' orders blindly signifies realizing the Kantian categorical imperative?
A. Since the Kantian imperative was laid down, there had never been such a destructive and unprecedented order from a head of state. That is why it was new, and that is why there is no possibility of comparisons, and no…one cannot have any idea of how it was. There was the War. I had to do just one thing. I had to obey, because I could not change anything. And so I just placed my life, as far as I could, in the service - I would put it this way - of this Kantian demand. And I have already said that in fact others had to answer for the fundamental aspect. As a minor recipient of orders, I had to obey, I could not evade that.
Q. I understood from the first part of your answer that you meant that these years in which you were a blind recipient of orders would be excluded from life according to the Kantian imperative. And I intended to ask you about this, from when till when did it last? But then you added something, and that again changed the whole thing. Now I do not know what your final position is on this.
A. Killing people violently cannot be according to the spirit of the Kantian imperative, because in principle it is not something God-given.
Q. That means that there was a time when you did not live by the categorical imperative?
A. Could not live, because higher powers made it impossible for me to live by it.
Q. From when to when was this?
A. Strictly speaking, that was from the moment when I was transferred against my will, and against my wishes, to Berlin.
Q. Till when?
A. Until the end.
I like to think of Wizards as the new Volcel Monks studying scholastic philosophy and logic chopping how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; while surrounded by darkness and barbarism around us.
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Medieval+
http://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Medieval+
http://bespalovseminar.narod.ru/literature/MetaX2.pdf
http://flov.gu.se/digitalAssets/1445/1445637_metametaphysics.pdf
Metaphysics is concerned with the foundations of reality. It asks questions
about the nature of the world, such as: Aside from concrete objects, are there
also abstract objects like numbers and properties? Does every event have a
cause? What is the nature of possibility and necessity? When do several things
make up a single bigger thing? Do the past and future exist? And so on.
Metametaphysics is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.
It asks:
Do the questions of metaphysics really have answers? If so, are these answers
substantive or just a matter of how we use words? And what is the best
procedure for arriving at them — common sense? Conceptual analysis? Or
assessing competing hypotheses with quasi-scientific criteria?
This volume gathers together sixteen new essays that are concerned with
the semantics, epistemology, and methodology of metaphysics. My aim is to
introduce these essays within a more general (and mildly opinionated) survey
of contemporary challenges to metaphysics.
http://flov.gu.se/digitalAssets/1445/1445637_metametaphysics.pdf
Metaphysics is concerned with the foundations of reality. It asks questions
about the nature of the world, such as: Aside from concrete objects, are there
also abstract objects like numbers and properties? Does every event have a
cause? What is the nature of possibility and necessity? When do several things
make up a single bigger thing? Do the past and future exist? And so on.
Metametaphysics is concerned with the foundations of metaphysics.
It asks:
Do the questions of metaphysics really have answers? If so, are these answers
substantive or just a matter of how we use words? And what is the best
procedure for arriving at them — common sense? Conceptual analysis? Or
assessing competing hypotheses with quasi-scientific criteria?
This volume gathers together sixteen new essays that are concerned with
the semantics, epistemology, and methodology of metaphysics. My aim is to
introduce these essays within a more general (and mildly opinionated) survey
of contemporary challenges to metaphysics.
I was looking up the volcel french materialist philosopher, I was thinking it was Holbach, but it was actually Diderot.
https://archive.is/UbofA#selection-13389.0-13389.7
https://archive.is/UbofA#selection-13389.0-13389.7
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011/01/angry_nerds.html
>The attraction of Nietzsche to socially maladjusted young men is obvious, but it isn't exactly simple. It is built from several interlocking pieces. Nietzsche mocks convention and propriety (and mocks difficult writers you'd prefer not to bother with anyway). He's funny and (deceptively) easy to read, especially compared to his antecedents in German philosophy, who are also his flabby and lumbering targets: Schopenhauer, Hegel, and, especially, Kant. If your social world fails to appreciate your singularity and tells you that you're a loser, reading Nietzsche can steel you in your secret conviction that, no, I'm a genius, or at least very special, and everyone else is the loser. Like you, Nietzsche was misunderstood in his day, ignored or derided by other scholars. Like you, Nietzsche seems to find everything around him lame, either stodgy and moralistic or sick with democratic vulgarity. Nietzsche seems to believe in aristocracy, which is taboo these days, which might be why no one recognizes you as the higher sort of guy you suspect yourself to be. And crucially, if you're a horny and poetic young man whose dream succubus is ever present before your eyes but just out of reach, Nietzsche frames his project of resistance and overcoming as not just romantic but erotic.
>The attraction of Nietzsche to socially maladjusted young men is obvious, but it isn't exactly simple. It is built from several interlocking pieces. Nietzsche mocks convention and propriety (and mocks difficult writers you'd prefer not to bother with anyway). He's funny and (deceptively) easy to read, especially compared to his antecedents in German philosophy, who are also his flabby and lumbering targets: Schopenhauer, Hegel, and, especially, Kant. If your social world fails to appreciate your singularity and tells you that you're a loser, reading Nietzsche can steel you in your secret conviction that, no, I'm a genius, or at least very special, and everyone else is the loser. Like you, Nietzsche was misunderstood in his day, ignored or derided by other scholars. Like you, Nietzsche seems to find everything around him lame, either stodgy and moralistic or sick with democratic vulgarity. Nietzsche seems to believe in aristocracy, which is taboo these days, which might be why no one recognizes you as the higher sort of guy you suspect yourself to be. And crucially, if you're a horny and poetic young man whose dream succubus is ever present before your eyes but just out of reach, Nietzsche frames his project of resistance and overcoming as not just romantic but erotic.
>>31563
>Slate
>writing about lazy pseudo-intellectuals reading easy, self-flattering material and thinking it makes them cultured or enlightened
>Slate
>writing about lazy pseudo-intellectuals reading easy, self-flattering material and thinking it makes them cultured or enlightened
https://books.google.com/books?id=oGtVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA258&dq=Bentham+celibate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiBgoHjm5fMAhVEGj4KHezxDkI4ChDoAQgvMAM#v=onepage&q=celibacy&f=false
>As to my celibacy, I don't know very well how the stigma could be wiped off, at least in time, and if it were, it might be only making bad worse, — since it is a… but the female yahoo would be more intolerable
>The romantic and industrious Mrs. Oliphant called Jeremy "a queer little antiquated celibate, as grotesque as anything that ever came out of … He snored mightily
https://books.google.com/books?id=hPyTlgecn-EC&pg=PA93&dq=Bentham+celibate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjng9mnm5fMAhWBbj4KHbLGDRQQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Bentham%20celibate&f=false
>As to my celibacy, I don't know very well how the stigma could be wiped off, at least in time, and if it were, it might be only making bad worse, — since it is a… but the female yahoo would be more intolerable
>The romantic and industrious Mrs. Oliphant called Jeremy "a queer little antiquated celibate, as grotesque as anything that ever came out of … He snored mightily
https://books.google.com/books?id=hPyTlgecn-EC&pg=PA93&dq=Bentham+celibate&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjng9mnm5fMAhWBbj4KHbLGDRQQ6AEILjAD#v=onepage&q=Bentham%20celibate&f=false
File: 1482817913888.jpg (66.43 KB, 500x625, 4:5, dionysios_the_areopagite.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Here are the works of pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Dionysius_the_Areopagite) as well as a list of complementary material to help you understand him.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/
> Dionysius the Areopagite is the name given to the anonymous author of a number of 5th century Christian texts. This mystical body of work was influenced by Neoplatonism. Much admired during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, debates about the identity of the author continue to this day. These documents are from a very early stage in the development of Christianity.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/
> Dionysius the Areopagite is the name given to the anonymous author of a number of 5th century Christian texts. This mystical body of work was influenced by Neoplatonism. Much admired during the Middle Ages and Renaissance, debates about the identity of the author continue to this day. These documents are from a very early stage in the development of Christianity.
>>28212
>I believe that there is no meaning in life, and any meaning you can create is merely an illusion, a trick to make you feel good, or motivate and create a sense of duty to do thing.
This is true. But why should the illusion of meaning be considered less legitimate than the real thing?
>I think that this question implies that living without meaning, purpose, is a dreadful experience.
You've said that you feel depressed. Wouldn't it be better to have the distraction of artificial meaning rather than the emptiness of meaninglessness?
>I believe that there is no meaning in life, and any meaning you can create is merely an illusion, a trick to make you feel good, or motivate and create a sense of duty to do thing.
This is true. But why should the illusion of meaning be considered less legitimate than the real thing?
>I think that this question implies that living without meaning, purpose, is a dreadful experience.
You've said that you feel depressed. Wouldn't it be better to have the distraction of artificial meaning rather than the emptiness of meaninglessness?
With how common "the meaning of life" comes up in philosophy I just want to give you my ideas on it, what it is, and how it came about.
Man has evolved to set goals for himself. It was an evolutionarily advantageous trait, as people who set goals were better at making plans. Goal setting is a deep set desire in all of us, especially the more intelligent among us. Our goals were created from needs we perceived. For example:
I hunt Elk to get hide -→ I get hide to make cloths → I make cloths to stay warm → I stay warm to stay alive.
The next logical question is I stay alive to ??? This is fundamentally what the "meaning of life" is. It is the question that all justification of goals ultimately lead to. Therefore what we truly desire when we say we desire a meaning to life is to have some justifications for our innate desire to create goal.
There are a few solutions in my eyes.
>Live in the moment
By living in the moment you reduce your planing for the future, which reduces the anxiety created from having no justifications for creating goals.
>Use morality as a meaning for life
Any objective moral structure can be used as the purpose for life. Moral relativists will struggle with this.
>Spirituality/faith
I imagine most here will not like this idea, but in my opinion there are many strong arguments for non-dogmatic spirituality. Things such as the unmoved mover, and the hard problem of consciousness should give pause to any physicalist.
>>32394 I don't feel a self created meaning is satisfactory though. Any self-created meaning will not satisfy the question described above. The meaning of life requires a priori justification or a self justifying justification.
I would appreciate any thoughts on my ideas.
Man has evolved to set goals for himself. It was an evolutionarily advantageous trait, as people who set goals were better at making plans. Goal setting is a deep set desire in all of us, especially the more intelligent among us. Our goals were created from needs we perceived. For example:
I hunt Elk to get hide -→ I get hide to make cloths → I make cloths to stay warm → I stay warm to stay alive.
The next logical question is I stay alive to ??? This is fundamentally what the "meaning of life" is. It is the question that all justification of goals ultimately lead to. Therefore what we truly desire when we say we desire a meaning to life is to have some justifications for our innate desire to create goal.
There are a few solutions in my eyes.
>Live in the moment
By living in the moment you reduce your planing for the future, which reduces the anxiety created from having no justifications for creating goals.
>Use morality as a meaning for life
Any objective moral structure can be used as the purpose for life. Moral relativists will struggle with this.
>Spirituality/faith
I imagine most here will not like this idea, but in my opinion there are many strong arguments for non-dogmatic spirituality. Things such as the unmoved mover, and the hard problem of consciousness should give pause to any physicalist.
>>32394 I don't feel a self created meaning is satisfactory though. Any self-created meaning will not satisfy the question described above. The meaning of life requires a priori justification or a self justifying justification.
I would appreciate any thoughts on my ideas.
>>31563
> Nietzsche was misunderstood in his day, ignored or derided by other scholars
Wasn't he the youngest professor of Greek or something ever? This article was wrote for people too stupid to read Nietzsche and seems to attempt to justify it as Nietzsche just being for people too stupid to read Hegal or Kant.
> Nietzsche was misunderstood in his day, ignored or derided by other scholars
Wasn't he the youngest professor of Greek or something ever? This article was wrote for people too stupid to read Nietzsche and seems to attempt to justify it as Nietzsche just being for people too stupid to read Hegal or Kant.
>>32399
That was as a philologist, he wasn't recognized for his philosophy until near his death
That was as a philologist, he wasn't recognized for his philosophy until near his death
>>32393
> pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
I enjoy the Neoplatonic strand of Christianity influenced by pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite , but tbh didn't get much out of his actual text which seems like one of those esoteric magick books listing the categories of angels
> pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite
I enjoy the Neoplatonic strand of Christianity influenced by pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite , but tbh didn't get much out of his actual text which seems like one of those esoteric magick books listing the categories of angels
Do you think anti-natalism is the natural philosophy for Wizards, not just not reproducing, but rejecting the Darwinian sexual urge itself and all the suffering that comes from it?
>>32414
>Do you think anti-natalism is the natural philosophy for Wizards
no, i believe a philosophy of indifference is most suitable for wizards
>Do you think anti-natalism is the natural philosophy for Wizards
no, i believe a philosophy of indifference is most suitable for wizards
>>32415
You could believe that objectively it is better not to be born and yet still be indifferent to it
You could believe that objectively it is better not to be born and yet still be indifferent to it
>>32417
maybe you can believe that, but i don't. i try feeling only indifference to 'suffering' and hardships. tempering yourself through indifference against any bad while still feeling all the good, that's what i meant. if i felt living and everything was worse than death, i don't understand how i could remain indifferent, i would just kill myself
maybe you can believe that, but i don't. i try feeling only indifference to 'suffering' and hardships. tempering yourself through indifference against any bad while still feeling all the good, that's what i meant. if i felt living and everything was worse than death, i don't understand how i could remain indifferent, i would just kill myself
>>32414
I think so. It's certainly been a great fit for many wizards. Too bad it will never catch on. It is sad to think about all the future wizards who will exist, not to mention the billions of normalcattle, slaves to their biology, playing out a silly, painful game generation after generation.
I think so. It's certainly been a great fit for many wizards. Too bad it will never catch on. It is sad to think about all the future wizards who will exist, not to mention the billions of normalcattle, slaves to their biology, playing out a silly, painful game generation after generation.
>>32434
Maybe more as a philosophy or attitude towards life that justifies the wizard worldview as opposed to a plan of action for all humanity
Maybe more as a philosophy or attitude towards life that justifies the wizard worldview as opposed to a plan of action for all humanity
Should anti-natalism make sweeping statements that all people in all times and all places would be better off not being born? To what extent does subjective evaluation matter?
Even if we conceded that the average 1st world normie has a life worth living today, a not totally insignificant proportion of 2016, we would still be left with 99.9% of humans who have ever lived having lives objectively not worth living. What is the worth of a serf in a traditionalist society? But idk, there weren't mass suicides of serfs. Maybe thats because religion being the opiate of the masses. If anything more 1st world people kill themselves out of ennui. The people we say might perhaps have objectively worth living lives. Is anti-natalism just a fancy way of trying to objectify my subjective feeling of hating life and wishing I were never born and wanting to suicide?
What is a life worth living? Suppose medieval serfs were deluded by heaven. Does their subjective belief in the bliss of the afterlife count in the hedonist calculus?
Even if we conceded that the average 1st world normie has a life worth living today, a not totally insignificant proportion of 2016, we would still be left with 99.9% of humans who have ever lived having lives objectively not worth living. What is the worth of a serf in a traditionalist society? But idk, there weren't mass suicides of serfs. Maybe thats because religion being the opiate of the masses. If anything more 1st world people kill themselves out of ennui. The people we say might perhaps have objectively worth living lives. Is anti-natalism just a fancy way of trying to objectify my subjective feeling of hating life and wishing I were never born and wanting to suicide?
What is a life worth living? Suppose medieval serfs were deluded by heaven. Does their subjective belief in the bliss of the afterlife count in the hedonist calculus?
Is there a contradiction between a Wizard being a proud Volcel who is not some tfw no gf incel crybaby about being shit, while at the same time being pessimistic anti-natalists over how life is shit?
Does being a content volcel mean we should embrace life and stop being philosophically depressed?
Does being a content volcel mean we should embrace life and stop being philosophically depressed?
>>32456
I associate voceldom more with apathy than positivism really. Succubi is the biggest meme out there and isn't worth it so what is? You can be nihilistic and despite what some people believe you can even be hedonistic and not like the monk-like character they envision. Be as gluttonous and lazy as you want, satisfying yourself, instead of exerting so much effort into desperately trying to get succubi to acknowledge and validate you, which would not be satisfying to a vocel.
I associate voceldom more with apathy than positivism really. Succubi is the biggest meme out there and isn't worth it so what is? You can be nihilistic and despite what some people believe you can even be hedonistic and not like the monk-like character they envision. Be as gluttonous and lazy as you want, satisfying yourself, instead of exerting so much effort into desperately trying to get succubi to acknowledge and validate you, which would not be satisfying to a vocel.
>>32457
>Succubi is the biggest meme out there and isn't worth it so what is?
Isn't that basically accepting and internalizing the meme though? You're never going to have a gf or sex, so therefore you give up on life or can't find any more worthy goals. Well IDK what the objectively good goals that any human or volcels in particular show be aiming for.
We eliminate the Darwinian goal of spreading selfish genes. But we haven't collectively come up with any higher goal in its place.
What are the ethics of being a Wizard? Not just morals, but the nature of living a good Wizard life. Eudaemonia. Wizard flourishing. Is laziness a Wizard virtue for instance? Should laziness be praised as seeing through the hollowness of the ratrace, and so conserving energy from waste? Or is laziness a sign of defeatism, tfw no gf, therefore nothing else is worth doing.
Most Wizards are atheists, so we accept a lot of Darwinism and EvoPsych which assigns man very sexual goals. It explains the actions of normies very well. But we don't see it as the ethic to guide our own lives. We recognize humans as products of evolution, but we don't accept evolutionary goals. You could see how that could lead to a Wizard hedonism. Don't play evolution's game. But feed your sensory pleasure stimuli to the maximum through the easy access of food and electronics.
I'm not sure what the answers are. But I think its good we discuss these questions of purpose, the meaning of life, ethics, eudaemonia, the nature of existence, not just in the abstract but specifically from a Wizcentric approach.
>Succubi is the biggest meme out there and isn't worth it so what is?
Isn't that basically accepting and internalizing the meme though? You're never going to have a gf or sex, so therefore you give up on life or can't find any more worthy goals. Well IDK what the objectively good goals that any human or volcels in particular show be aiming for.
We eliminate the Darwinian goal of spreading selfish genes. But we haven't collectively come up with any higher goal in its place.
What are the ethics of being a Wizard? Not just morals, but the nature of living a good Wizard life. Eudaemonia. Wizard flourishing. Is laziness a Wizard virtue for instance? Should laziness be praised as seeing through the hollowness of the ratrace, and so conserving energy from waste? Or is laziness a sign of defeatism, tfw no gf, therefore nothing else is worth doing.
Most Wizards are atheists, so we accept a lot of Darwinism and EvoPsych which assigns man very sexual goals. It explains the actions of normies very well. But we don't see it as the ethic to guide our own lives. We recognize humans as products of evolution, but we don't accept evolutionary goals. You could see how that could lead to a Wizard hedonism. Don't play evolution's game. But feed your sensory pleasure stimuli to the maximum through the easy access of food and electronics.
I'm not sure what the answers are. But I think its good we discuss these questions of purpose, the meaning of life, ethics, eudaemonia, the nature of existence, not just in the abstract but specifically from a Wizcentric approach.
>>32458
We could just make our own religious order based on the original teachings of Buddha.
I mean Buddha's original shit seems to be pretty in-line, he said succubi couldn't reach enlightenment because they aren't really human. And real buddhism, not the bullshit they preach in most "buddhist" areas, is just an ethical code that you
>have to be a NEET
>own no luxuries
>live from charity
>be a true wizard and don't even get near succubi
>don't harm people, lie, steal, or decieve
Seems good to me.
We could just make our own religious order based on the original teachings of Buddha.
I mean Buddha's original shit seems to be pretty in-line, he said succubi couldn't reach enlightenment because they aren't really human. And real buddhism, not the bullshit they preach in most "buddhist" areas, is just an ethical code that you
>have to be a NEET
>own no luxuries
>live from charity
>be a true wizard and don't even get near succubi
>don't harm people, lie, steal, or decieve
Seems good to me.
>>32459
>succubi couldn't reach enlightenment because they aren't really human
I'm sorry, but can I get a source or citation for that? That's kind of surprising to me, but I want to see how he says it.
>succubi couldn't reach enlightenment because they aren't really human
I'm sorry, but can I get a source or citation for that? That's kind of surprising to me, but I want to see how he says it.
>>32459
Well yeah Buddhist and Vedic philosophy as read by the Germans, shorn of its religious content by Hesse and Schopenhauer has definitely influenced my anti-natalist, pessimist, ascetic thinking.
And stuff from Indian philosophy of there being no such thing as the self and human consciousness being a mistake leads into modern anti-natalism
Well yeah Buddhist and Vedic philosophy as read by the Germans, shorn of its religious content by Hesse and Schopenhauer has definitely influenced my anti-natalist, pessimist, ascetic thinking.
And stuff from Indian philosophy of there being no such thing as the self and human consciousness being a mistake leads into modern anti-natalism
A Kantian Volcel must by definition be an anti-natalist
"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."
File: 1483415609887.jpg (59.14 KB, 564x687, 188:229, ede5e16e3803b43c20c8288fb3….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
What are peoples thoughts on Arthur Schopenhauer?
Schopenhauer, Epicurus and a touch of stoicism and catholicism basically make up my personal philosophy on life.
Schopenhauer, Epicurus and a touch of stoicism and catholicism basically make up my personal philosophy on life.
>>32505
Interesting observation, but a vocel could have a moral rule such as "Only those who should gain adequate happiness from the raising of children should choose to engage in activities which would lead to the creation of them." A vocel would be following this law, while at the same time not being an anti-natalist. It would require a sort of a-morality about the number of people on earth though, so they could not be a natalist.
Interesting observation, but a vocel could have a moral rule such as "Only those who should gain adequate happiness from the raising of children should choose to engage in activities which would lead to the creation of them." A vocel would be following this law, while at the same time not being an anti-natalist. It would require a sort of a-morality about the number of people on earth though, so they could not be a natalist.
>>32584
Yeah thats a problem with Kantian ethics in general in that the categorical imperative sounds simple but then you get to the question of which maxim you are actually applying. And theres a lot of lawyering you can do with your Kantian conscience. Kant himself was a lifelong virgin btw.
In this specific case I don't think your counterpoint really holds since
>Only those who should gain adequate happiness
sounds more like a 'hypothetical imperative' as opposed to a 'categorical imperative'. Its the type of specific circumstances, special pleading Kant was trying to avoid. For example Kant believed it was always wrong to lie period. But one can always use ultra-specific maxims like "its OK to lie if the truth will hurt the person more than the lie". That wouldn't meet the standards of Kantian moral law. A universal law.
Yeah thats a problem with Kantian ethics in general in that the categorical imperative sounds simple but then you get to the question of which maxim you are actually applying. And theres a lot of lawyering you can do with your Kantian conscience. Kant himself was a lifelong virgin btw.
In this specific case I don't think your counterpoint really holds since
>Only those who should gain adequate happiness
sounds more like a 'hypothetical imperative' as opposed to a 'categorical imperative'. Its the type of specific circumstances, special pleading Kant was trying to avoid. For example Kant believed it was always wrong to lie period. But one can always use ultra-specific maxims like "its OK to lie if the truth will hurt the person more than the lie". That wouldn't meet the standards of Kantian moral law. A universal law.
>>32594
Part of me feels like Kant more meant that any action that you feel is moral must be moral for all people. If this is accurate, than he would indeed say a vocel must be an anti-natalist.
Seems a bit over simplified to me, as there are some obvious examples that would contradict that line of thinking. For example murder is wrong, but it's fine for someone to kill someone else to save their family for instance.
The only good thing about Kantian ethics viewed this way would be how it doesn't let you weasel out of carving out moral exemptions for yourself. ethical frameworks like utilitarianism are rife with people carving out their own exceptions and justifying terrible acts.
Part of me feels like Kant more meant that any action that you feel is moral must be moral for all people. If this is accurate, than he would indeed say a vocel must be an anti-natalist.
Seems a bit over simplified to me, as there are some obvious examples that would contradict that line of thinking. For example murder is wrong, but it's fine for someone to kill someone else to save their family for instance.
The only good thing about Kantian ethics viewed this way would be how it doesn't let you weasel out of carving out moral exemptions for yourself. ethical frameworks like utilitarianism are rife with people carving out their own exceptions and justifying terrible acts.
File: 1483730580927.jpg (8.46 KB, 300x200, 3:2, th (1).jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>25356
Interesting, this chart seems to classify me as an epicurean. Where I stand is kind of odd, I basically have a self created philosophy i try to follow that uses a lot of vedic, hindu, buddhist, zen (in order of age created) lineage meditations as tools. I am by no means anywhere near an expert, i'm hardely a solid novice, but I have had some experiences with these tools that tell me they are incredibly useful,
I basically just meditate to be sharper, and more in control of my mind. i have a tulpa and do some active daydreaming and lucid dreaming work. Right now that mostly entails trying to practice my visualization skills, hanging out with my already established but far from complete tulpa, and doing basic breathe meditations to become more focused and unaffected by the external. My goals are being able to see my tulpa with all my senses, learning to diassassociate into daydreams, and having most of my dreams being lucid. The means to achieve this are frequent meditation, with some variance in technique, and clean, healthy living.
I am essentially of the belief that the inner world is beautiful, spontaneous, and full of subconcious life. WHile the external life is unsatisftying, unpredictable, and far more limited. I believe our minds are capable of being the primary controller of our experience, that it just takes time to train it to have such capabilities. That's my goal in life, i have managed to make progress. I started off being ragdolled and questioning what was even out there that I would want. Imagined scenarios in which i got it together and performed well, didn't find the fruits convincing. Now I have a little bit better control of my mind, live a good deal healthier, and am happy with my tulpa and don't doubt that my path will bring yields in time. The main factor is just making sure i push things forward daily, keep active to retain my energy.
For once I am content with where things are going. I doubt my path would be the right one for very many people, but I feel it's right for me. I try my best to offer advice to people with tulpas and people who want to meditate. I really reccomend that everyone finds what it would take to make them happy, be it a situation, a skill, an idea, then they strive for it. I don't feel like people should relegate themselves to the established philosophies that you can write a tomb about. People have great variance, their paths probably do too.
Interesting, this chart seems to classify me as an epicurean. Where I stand is kind of odd, I basically have a self created philosophy i try to follow that uses a lot of vedic, hindu, buddhist, zen (in order of age created) lineage meditations as tools. I am by no means anywhere near an expert, i'm hardely a solid novice, but I have had some experiences with these tools that tell me they are incredibly useful,
I basically just meditate to be sharper, and more in control of my mind. i have a tulpa and do some active daydreaming and lucid dreaming work. Right now that mostly entails trying to practice my visualization skills, hanging out with my already established but far from complete tulpa, and doing basic breathe meditations to become more focused and unaffected by the external. My goals are being able to see my tulpa with all my senses, learning to diassassociate into daydreams, and having most of my dreams being lucid. The means to achieve this are frequent meditation, with some variance in technique, and clean, healthy living.
I am essentially of the belief that the inner world is beautiful, spontaneous, and full of subconcious life. WHile the external life is unsatisftying, unpredictable, and far more limited. I believe our minds are capable of being the primary controller of our experience, that it just takes time to train it to have such capabilities. That's my goal in life, i have managed to make progress. I started off being ragdolled and questioning what was even out there that I would want. Imagined scenarios in which i got it together and performed well, didn't find the fruits convincing. Now I have a little bit better control of my mind, live a good deal healthier, and am happy with my tulpa and don't doubt that my path will bring yields in time. The main factor is just making sure i push things forward daily, keep active to retain my energy.
For once I am content with where things are going. I doubt my path would be the right one for very many people, but I feel it's right for me. I try my best to offer advice to people with tulpas and people who want to meditate. I really reccomend that everyone finds what it would take to make them happy, be it a situation, a skill, an idea, then they strive for it. I don't feel like people should relegate themselves to the established philosophies that you can write a tomb about. People have great variance, their paths probably do too.
On the subject of whether or not sexual reproduction is immoral, I don't believe that's an "unsolved question" in philosophical debate, it's an essential part of human existence as a species. Are you referring to recreational reproduction?
What do you think about Nietzsche's "life is just and good even if it causes suffering and has no meaning because it has aesthetic value" theory? Do you think aesthetics are subjective? Does the pain and struggles of Odyssey, Macbeth or Sinbad has the same value of an apathetic and powerless NEET's existential dread?
File: 1490024043047.jpg (84.06 KB, 776x1228, 194:307, Cover from Pessimisim.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Pessimism: A Lecture by Clarence Darrow held January 11th, 1920.
http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Pessimisim.pdf
http://moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Pessimisim.pdf
>>33665
I think that his point is that value is an ephemeral concept.
It's the only form of choice I believe "exists," fundamentally, you can choose to see meaning or not. One day it will end.
I think that his point is that value is an ephemeral concept.
It's the only form of choice I believe "exists," fundamentally, you can choose to see meaning or not. One day it will end.
The most interesting "problem of evil" theodicy defense I found was based on the "many worlds" interpretation of physics.
Think of all the possible universes that could exist.
God as a good utilitarian creates all the universes which are worth creating. So there are some truly wonderful utopia universes. But there are also some meh OK universes still better than not exiting. Thats us.
This is an interesting modern theodicy to justify God from the problem of evil.
There are multiple possible worlds, possible universes. And God to maximize the greatest good in the reality, must create all universes which are worth existing. But ought not create a universe that is terrible. Our universe isn't great, but theres just enough goodness in it, that its better existing than not.
Think of all the possible universes that could exist.
God as a good utilitarian creates all the universes which are worth creating. So there are some truly wonderful utopia universes. But there are also some meh OK universes still better than not exiting. Thats us.
This is an interesting modern theodicy to justify God from the problem of evil.
There are multiple possible worlds, possible universes. And God to maximize the greatest good in the reality, must create all universes which are worth existing. But ought not create a universe that is terrible. Our universe isn't great, but theres just enough goodness in it, that its better existing than not.
File: 1490159415806.png (147.94 KB, 517x387, 517:387, we must dissent~.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>35292
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
-Sister Miriam Godwinson
"But for the Grace of God"
Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?
-Sister Miriam Godwinson
"But for the Grace of God"
>>35292
From what little I recall, Spinoza wrote something similar, that in the infinite and perfect mind of God all of the ideas of God necessarily become the infinite and perfect form of the ideal, that is, they must become real, and so all that is possible, is realized, in the infinity of God, and through the ultimate unity of the disparate aspects of the mind of God (and, again if I recall correctly, I think Spinoza considered each physical object, including each human being and each human mind, a subdivision of the ultimate and infinite unity of God) the problem of theodicy resolves itself; "why must evil exist if God exists?" becomes "God exists, and all that can exist in the infinite domain of possibilities must exist."
I hope another wizard can explain this better or elaborate on it, I only really remember Spinoza from some threads speculating that he may have been a virgin.
From what little I recall, Spinoza wrote something similar, that in the infinite and perfect mind of God all of the ideas of God necessarily become the infinite and perfect form of the ideal, that is, they must become real, and so all that is possible, is realized, in the infinity of God, and through the ultimate unity of the disparate aspects of the mind of God (and, again if I recall correctly, I think Spinoza considered each physical object, including each human being and each human mind, a subdivision of the ultimate and infinite unity of God) the problem of theodicy resolves itself; "why must evil exist if God exists?" becomes "God exists, and all that can exist in the infinite domain of possibilities must exist."
I hope another wizard can explain this better or elaborate on it, I only really remember Spinoza from some threads speculating that he may have been a virgin.
>>35292
>still better than not existing
Honestly I never understood this "argument", which is constantly used by normans in defense of this world. How is shit better than no shit? than even no concept of shit?
>still better than not existing
Honestly I never understood this "argument", which is constantly used by normans in defense of this world. How is shit better than no shit? than even no concept of shit?
>>35306
When you think about the potential for the horrors that could be, our world isn't that bad. I say that not in spite of being a nihilist pessimist, but because of it. Our world isn't "shit". It's not anywhere close to shit. Because when things actually turn shit… well.
>>35292
I think the simplest of the reasonable answers to the problem of evil is that God is not a micromanager. It's fairly evident in the Bible. He creates Adam and Eve, they mess up, and end up on earth, where they and their descendants just do their own thing. God throws humans out of Heaven to fend for themselves exactly so that they learn to take responsibility of their own. While humans were creates in God's image, they are not God, and like an imperfect mirror reflection or a shadow of something, they are inherently flawed, and not as good as managing their affairs as God would be. Hence evil.
When you think about the potential for the horrors that could be, our world isn't that bad. I say that not in spite of being a nihilist pessimist, but because of it. Our world isn't "shit". It's not anywhere close to shit. Because when things actually turn shit… well.
>>35292
I think the simplest of the reasonable answers to the problem of evil is that God is not a micromanager. It's fairly evident in the Bible. He creates Adam and Eve, they mess up, and end up on earth, where they and their descendants just do their own thing. God throws humans out of Heaven to fend for themselves exactly so that they learn to take responsibility of their own. While humans were creates in God's image, they are not God, and like an imperfect mirror reflection or a shadow of something, they are inherently flawed, and not as good as managing their affairs as God would be. Hence evil.
>>35309
I'm not talking about the possibility of a shittier existence. I'm talking about the fact that NON-existence is generally viewed by normans as something very obviously worse than even the shittiest of existences.
"You don't like your life? Be happy you have one at all! Be happy you were allowed to exist!"
Slave mentality at its peak.
I'm not talking about the possibility of a shittier existence. I'm talking about the fact that NON-existence is generally viewed by normans as something very obviously worse than even the shittiest of existences.
"You don't like your life? Be happy you have one at all! Be happy you were allowed to exist!"
Slave mentality at its peak.
File: 1490232793820.jpg (8.66 KB, 205x245, 41:49, pz.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>35304
Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
-Academician Prokhor Zakharov
Man's unfailing capacity to believe what he prefers to be true rather than what the evidence shows to be likely and possible has always astounded me. We long for a caring Universe which will save us from our childish mistakes, and in the face of mountains of evidence to the contrary we will pin all our hopes on the slimmest of doubts. God has not been proven not to exist, therefore he must exist.
-Academician Prokhor Zakharov
File: 1490236337055.jpg (86.99 KB, 420x358, 210:179, 1376134056404.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>35326
yeah excuse me mister nerve staple if i don't take everything you say as divine truth.
yeah excuse me mister nerve staple if i don't take everything you say as divine truth.
>>35305
It similar except that Spinoza says God has to create literally everything, this is a more traditional personal God who chooses to create only the universes that are worth existing.
Although which mediocre universes qualify as good enough to exist would be subjective to God's standards.
It similar except that Spinoza says God has to create literally everything, this is a more traditional personal God who chooses to create only the universes that are worth existing.
Although which mediocre universes qualify as good enough to exist would be subjective to God's standards.
>>35348
If what you said is true, God must be quite the sadist. Or maybe it's all just for amusement and running a world is like playing a grand strategy game, where people are just numbers of the screen.
If what you said is true, God must be quite the sadist. Or maybe it's all just for amusement and running a world is like playing a grand strategy game, where people are just numbers of the screen.
>>35350
Its not that hes a sadist, at least according to this version, its just that hes a meh good enough kind of guy, he likes having as many universes as can exist, and if a universe is just good enough to exist, then it makes the cut, even if barely, even if theres a lot of suffering in it.
But what makes a universe worth existing?
Some normie teen with his 1st love, will write poetry about how all the universe was worth existing just so he can have this one moment with his sweetie.
Its not that hes a sadist, at least according to this version, its just that hes a meh good enough kind of guy, he likes having as many universes as can exist, and if a universe is just good enough to exist, then it makes the cut, even if barely, even if theres a lot of suffering in it.
But what makes a universe worth existing?
Some normie teen with his 1st love, will write poetry about how all the universe was worth existing just so he can have this one moment with his sweetie.
>>35351
Maybe it's less about the current state of affairs and more about the potential. Maybe global happiness is down the road somewhere, slowly built by a great design. Only after overcoming difficult trials will humanity truly appreciate what it means to have a dignified world.
Wew, that was one of the most optimistic things I've ever written.
Maybe it's less about the current state of affairs and more about the potential. Maybe global happiness is down the road somewhere, slowly built by a great design. Only after overcoming difficult trials will humanity truly appreciate what it means to have a dignified world.
Wew, that was one of the most optimistic things I've ever written.
>>35352
Everything that humanity did, does, and is going to build up, eventually ends up in destruction and chaos, it is the natural order of things, even the greatest empires fall, everlasting global happiness is unattainable, because humans are flawed like that. As a species we haven't even intellectually developed since thousands of years, and are possibly even dumbing down.
The only reassurance in all of this is that the universe works in the same way too, everything must end someday, in order to be reborn anew.
Everything that humanity did, does, and is going to build up, eventually ends up in destruction and chaos, it is the natural order of things, even the greatest empires fall, everlasting global happiness is unattainable, because humans are flawed like that. As a species we haven't even intellectually developed since thousands of years, and are possibly even dumbing down.
The only reassurance in all of this is that the universe works in the same way too, everything must end someday, in order to be reborn anew.
I guess the benefit of the "many worlds" theodicy is that it doesn't claim this is the best of all possible worlds. It claims that world exists and its awesome. But it deflates our universe into a just good enough universe. Maybe the worst of all existing universe. Just barely passing muster, so that its better to exist than not to exist.
I find the defense of this universe as the worst universe worth existing, but still worth existing, better than claiming its the best. Although many here will dispute whether it does pass muster even as a minimal universe.
And then it comes down to God's standards of what he subjectively considers a universe worth existing.
I mean I guess they could give you the anti-anti-natalist argument, that most people don't suicide, that most normies would rather exist than not exist. And so this universe is just giving the masses what they want. Existence.
I find the defense of this universe as the worst universe worth existing, but still worth existing, better than claiming its the best. Although many here will dispute whether it does pass muster even as a minimal universe.
And then it comes down to God's standards of what he subjectively considers a universe worth existing.
I mean I guess they could give you the anti-anti-natalist argument, that most people don't suicide, that most normies would rather exist than not exist. And so this universe is just giving the masses what they want. Existence.
>>35355
You're right. People are quick to give up many thing but they are very slow to give up life. Even if they're crawling in the mud with no food they will still struggle to survive. They choose a difficult existence over no existence at all.
I assume depressed wizards, and their likes, are different. They don't fear the non-existence, they fear the act of suicide, the death itself, and not what comes after it. For those whose lives are worse than nothing, non-existence must be like a golden castle across the moat. They want to get into the palace but the moat stops them.
One thing that bothers me though, and this might sound stupid in semantics, but somehow I doubt non-existence exists. I doubt that our consciousness just disappears when we die. I've no idea what it might looks like, but there must be an afterlife. The moat to the castle (death) might be an illusionary barrier. Once you get over it, you realize the castle was a mirage, and you still exist, just in some different form. Maybe you don't even realize anything and continue chasing the illusory castle just like you were before. Just like we do right now.
You're right. People are quick to give up many thing but they are very slow to give up life. Even if they're crawling in the mud with no food they will still struggle to survive. They choose a difficult existence over no existence at all.
I assume depressed wizards, and their likes, are different. They don't fear the non-existence, they fear the act of suicide, the death itself, and not what comes after it. For those whose lives are worse than nothing, non-existence must be like a golden castle across the moat. They want to get into the palace but the moat stops them.
One thing that bothers me though, and this might sound stupid in semantics, but somehow I doubt non-existence exists. I doubt that our consciousness just disappears when we die. I've no idea what it might looks like, but there must be an afterlife. The moat to the castle (death) might be an illusionary barrier. Once you get over it, you realize the castle was a mirage, and you still exist, just in some different form. Maybe you don't even realize anything and continue chasing the illusory castle just like you were before. Just like we do right now.
>>35356
I hate this Darwinian universe. But the one plus side to eternalizing the Darwinian worldview is the end is the end. There is no self without body and genes.
And if you think of all the things that make you, you. Your consciousness. You will see how much of it is shaped by your physical body, experiences, life history, society, culture, religion, language, parents, race, physical traits, brain wiring, personality disorders etc etc etc. Strip all that away and you don't get the inner core of the onion, you get nothing.
I hate this Darwinian universe. But the one plus side to eternalizing the Darwinian worldview is the end is the end. There is no self without body and genes.
And if you think of all the things that make you, you. Your consciousness. You will see how much of it is shaped by your physical body, experiences, life history, society, culture, religion, language, parents, race, physical traits, brain wiring, personality disorders etc etc etc. Strip all that away and you don't get the inner core of the onion, you get nothing.
>>35355
You can call it the "C Student" theory of our universe. Yeah it sucks, but it just good enough to pass existing, living among all our peer universe "A Students" which better reflect the benign benevolence of a just God. We get to exist too, but we just met his standards.
You can call it the "C Student" theory of our universe. Yeah it sucks, but it just good enough to pass existing, living among all our peer universe "A Students" which better reflect the benign benevolence of a just God. We get to exist too, but we just met his standards.
File: 1490557641317.gif (3.37 MB, 2000x1624, 250:203, saoe12aijunx.gif) ImgOps iqdb
There is a new reddit board for the wizardly philosopher Philipp Mainländer.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mainlander/
And here's another Mainländer resource, which gets posted here from time to time:
>The rotting God - Mainländers Metaphysic of Entropy
http://philosophy-of-redemption.blogspot.nl/2013/05/the-rotting-god-mainlanders-metaphysic.html
>The Assembly Line of Death
http://philosophy-of-redemption.blogspot.nl/2013/06/the-assembly-line-of-death.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/Mainlander/
And here's another Mainländer resource, which gets posted here from time to time:
>The rotting God - Mainländers Metaphysic of Entropy
http://philosophy-of-redemption.blogspot.nl/2013/05/the-rotting-god-mainlanders-metaphysic.html
>The Assembly Line of Death
http://philosophy-of-redemption.blogspot.nl/2013/06/the-assembly-line-of-death.html
>>25399
>What would you do if you knew for certain the world would end 30 days after you die?
Kill myself ASAP.
>What would you do if you knew for certain the world would end 30 days after you die?
Kill myself ASAP.
https://www.hedweb.com/
>The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
This is what philosophy should be about, offering wise solutions to real-life problems.
>The Hedonistic Imperative outlines how genetic engineering and nanotechnology will abolish suffering in all sentient life.
This is what philosophy should be about, offering wise solutions to real-life problems.
>>35359
His argument does not really hold up if God is truly infinite. The ultimate utilitarian solution would be to create the perfect universe infinite times. In this way the ratio of happiness and suffering would be better.
It seems like he may actually be making a priori argument that by God's nature all things that are possible become reality. In this case the question of how could a benevolent God create an evil universe is irrelevant because he creates evil universe just by existing and has no control over it. I may be understanding him wrong here though.
His argument does not really hold up if God is truly infinite. The ultimate utilitarian solution would be to create the perfect universe infinite times. In this way the ratio of happiness and suffering would be better.
It seems like he may actually be making a priori argument that by God's nature all things that are possible become reality. In this case the question of how could a benevolent God create an evil universe is irrelevant because he creates evil universe just by existing and has no control over it. I may be understanding him wrong here though.
>>36013
That doesn't seem like a good solution to me though. It's taking "life" and turning it into something else, a twisted one dimensional form of it. It's like building a hedonist AI that only feels good, sure we might be able to do it and maybe the AI would be happy but what's the point of creating such a being? It would be something of a qualitatively different nature than we are so it wouldn't be a continuation of us. Such an act is a hollow dream of something we want for ourselves but will never get. That being the case we already have a better solution to ending suffering and it's ending life. It's the same principle of transformation but imminently more achievable for not just humans, but for all life.
That doesn't seem like a good solution to me though. It's taking "life" and turning it into something else, a twisted one dimensional form of it. It's like building a hedonist AI that only feels good, sure we might be able to do it and maybe the AI would be happy but what's the point of creating such a being? It would be something of a qualitatively different nature than we are so it wouldn't be a continuation of us. Such an act is a hollow dream of something we want for ourselves but will never get. That being the case we already have a better solution to ending suffering and it's ending life. It's the same principle of transformation but imminently more achievable for not just humans, but for all life.
>>36048
A good God doesn't create horrible, terrible universes that have no justification at all to exist. But God creates meh ok universes that aren't great, have a lot of suffering, but are just good enough, that it would be doing evil to all the enjoyment and happiness in that universe to not let it exist.
A good God doesn't create horrible, terrible universes that have no justification at all to exist. But God creates meh ok universes that aren't great, have a lot of suffering, but are just good enough, that it would be doing evil to all the enjoyment and happiness in that universe to not let it exist.
Those medieval volcels really got into the metaphysics of being a virgin
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peter-damian/#4
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/peter-damian/#4
Is Hume the greatest enlightenment philosopher?
I have Hume's treatise on the backburner, haven't gotten around to finishing it. I finished the 1st half that gets into things like selfhood and causality and is the main source of Hume's influence in contemporary metaphysics. But I've been putting off reading his 2nd half on ethics, emotions, politics.
The Enlightenment as a period of intellectual history interests me. I've never been much into British Empiricism. A bit too common sense for me. Although Berkeley takes it in some very non-common directions, although his ultimate conclusion is we must accept common sense. Hume too, when he says that one can't live by scepticism. But French Enlightement philosophy is largely just a translation and radicalization of British empiricism. And Hume is probably the most sophisticated discussion of the philosophical issues of the Enlightenment and British Empiricism. Well the French Materialists are largely radicalizations of Locke, and Hume takes Locke to his absurd sceptical conclusions. Well most of the French were philosophes not philosophers. Great essayists, popularizers, and critics. The main systematic works of the French Enlightement would be Helvetias, Holbach and La Mettrie.
I have Hume's treatise on the backburner, haven't gotten around to finishing it. I finished the 1st half that gets into things like selfhood and causality and is the main source of Hume's influence in contemporary metaphysics. But I've been putting off reading his 2nd half on ethics, emotions, politics.
The Enlightenment as a period of intellectual history interests me. I've never been much into British Empiricism. A bit too common sense for me. Although Berkeley takes it in some very non-common directions, although his ultimate conclusion is we must accept common sense. Hume too, when he says that one can't live by scepticism. But French Enlightement philosophy is largely just a translation and radicalization of British empiricism. And Hume is probably the most sophisticated discussion of the philosophical issues of the Enlightenment and British Empiricism. Well the French Materialists are largely radicalizations of Locke, and Hume takes Locke to his absurd sceptical conclusions. Well most of the French were philosophes not philosophers. Great essayists, popularizers, and critics. The main systematic works of the French Enlightement would be Helvetias, Holbach and La Mettrie.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/category/history/medieval/
I like reading the philosophy of our volcel forefathers. I like to imagine our celibate monastic scholastics hidden away from the barbarian chads of the Dark Ages, away in their monastery, dissecting and logic chopping how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. volcel monks so far away from the flesh of the world.
I like reading the philosophy of our volcel forefathers. I like to imagine our celibate monastic scholastics hidden away from the barbarian chads of the Dark Ages, away in their monastery, dissecting and logic chopping how many angels can dance on the head of a needle. volcel monks so far away from the flesh of the world.
File: 1494577107450.jpg (25.42 KB, 603x464, 603:464, a125.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Does philosophy fail in the face of death? Karl White turns to the Romanian philosopher Emil Cioran’s life-long meditation on birth, existence and annihilation, asking whether philosophy can save us from the despair of our final hour or whether its limits lie at the very edge of our own mortality.
http://www.fourbythreemagazine.com/issue/death/emil-cioran-the-anti-philosopher-of-life-and-death
For Cioran there was no consolation, only an endless meditation on the same topic: “Each time I fail to think about death, I have the impression of cheating, of deceiving someone in me.” After decades of thinking, brooding and writing on the topic, Cioran was compelled to admit defeat. He had suspected at the beginning of his philosophical journey that thought was helpless in the face of death. A lifetime of thought had confirmed it: “For years, in fact for life, to have meditated only on your last moments, only to discover, when at last you approach them, that it was of no use, that the thought of death helps in everything save in dying!”
http://www.fourbythreemagazine.com/issue/death/emil-cioran-the-anti-philosopher-of-life-and-death
For Cioran there was no consolation, only an endless meditation on the same topic: “Each time I fail to think about death, I have the impression of cheating, of deceiving someone in me.” After decades of thinking, brooding and writing on the topic, Cioran was compelled to admit defeat. He had suspected at the beginning of his philosophical journey that thought was helpless in the face of death. A lifetime of thought had confirmed it: “For years, in fact for life, to have meditated only on your last moments, only to discover, when at last you approach them, that it was of no use, that the thought of death helps in everything save in dying!”
File: 1498790850956.jpg (27.98 KB, 656x353, 656:353, dark city.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Interview with Colin Feltham on depressive realism, antinatalism, and other similar topics.
Colin Feltham is a semi-retired psychology professor, psychotherapeut, and author of many books. He’s perhaps the worlds “leading” proponent of a direction in psychology called Depressive Realism, that stems from experiments from the 70s that showed that peope who were mildly depressed had more accurate view of certain things, perhaps even reality. Its a very fascinating field, and quite a new phenomenon, and it challenges many of the current views in psychology, like behaviorism.
Feltham contacted me through Planet Zapffe some time ago, and was very interested in Peter Wessel Zapffe and proposed Zapffe’s view of existence could be seen as a missing field in psychology. We’ve chatted quite a lot since then, and he’s one of the nicest and wisest people I’ve come to meet, with a lot of insight. I had many questions about Depressive Realism, psychology and everything related. He luckily agreed to do an interview.
http://www.knunst.com/planetzapffe/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Interview-Colin-Feltham-20141.pdf
Colin Feltham is a semi-retired psychology professor, psychotherapeut, and author of many books. He’s perhaps the worlds “leading” proponent of a direction in psychology called Depressive Realism, that stems from experiments from the 70s that showed that peope who were mildly depressed had more accurate view of certain things, perhaps even reality. Its a very fascinating field, and quite a new phenomenon, and it challenges many of the current views in psychology, like behaviorism.
Feltham contacted me through Planet Zapffe some time ago, and was very interested in Peter Wessel Zapffe and proposed Zapffe’s view of existence could be seen as a missing field in psychology. We’ve chatted quite a lot since then, and he’s one of the nicest and wisest people I’ve come to meet, with a lot of insight. I had many questions about Depressive Realism, psychology and everything related. He luckily agreed to do an interview.
http://www.knunst.com/planetzapffe/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Interview-Colin-Feltham-20141.pdf
anyone ever thought about 'change'?
you can think of it as some primal process accounting for everything, and even time through literally changing things, observation, information, creation, existence, destruction, all i can think of as processes of change. but i still don't know what is change
there is A, but now there is B instead of A, and this is change. but how can A become B? it A destroyed and B created simultaneously, or is it like how dry ice can sublimate from solid to gas, does A just directly become B somehow? what is the simplest unit of change? is existence and observation possible without change? i try looking for answers aound this subject but there isn't much
you can think of it as some primal process accounting for everything, and even time through literally changing things, observation, information, creation, existence, destruction, all i can think of as processes of change. but i still don't know what is change
there is A, but now there is B instead of A, and this is change. but how can A become B? it A destroyed and B created simultaneously, or is it like how dry ice can sublimate from solid to gas, does A just directly become B somehow? what is the simplest unit of change? is existence and observation possible without change? i try looking for answers aound this subject but there isn't much
>>40542
>I see that you aim to portray the person you interview <…> I am a very private person who would be mortified to be written about in the kind of detail I’ve seen in the other interviews.
>the reporter still describe his appearance
What the actual fuck.
>I see that you aim to portray the person you interview <…> I am a very private person who would be mortified to be written about in the kind of detail I’ve seen in the other interviews.
>the reporter still describe his appearance
What the actual fuck.
>>40545
Well if we look at specific examples of change it is quantity into quality
Google theseus ship
If we think of a rotting Apple or a decomposing body it doesn't instantly transform into rot. Atom by atom changes. So it's small changes over time.
I mean if a human being instantly convicted into plant nutrients that would be magic. But when he dies and decomposes we understand that change
Well if we look at specific examples of change it is quantity into quality
Google theseus ship
If we think of a rotting Apple or a decomposing body it doesn't instantly transform into rot. Atom by atom changes. So it's small changes over time.
I mean if a human being instantly convicted into plant nutrients that would be magic. But when he dies and decomposes we understand that change
>>41115
Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with perception of the event. Everyone has different perceptions, and they will say different things when they have different information, depending upon their relation to the object at hand. Change is more of a word we use to explain what we think is happening from our perspective rather than something independent of us. Rather, how can anything be independent of perception?
>>41114
It's probably a waste of time.
Yeah, but that doesn't have anything to do with perception of the event. Everyone has different perceptions, and they will say different things when they have different information, depending upon their relation to the object at hand. Change is more of a word we use to explain what we think is happening from our perspective rather than something independent of us. Rather, how can anything be independent of perception?
>>41114
It's probably a waste of time.
>>41134
>Rather, how can anything be independent of perception?
Well thats when you start thinking about solipsism.
This is one of the top google hits for solipsism.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
It doesn't really refute solipsism, it admits it can't be logically refuted so it instead relies on the rhetorical arguments from
1. Hedonism- if I control the world I should be in the Islamic heaven with a garden of half naked houris peeling grapes for me.
2. Hinduism- the universe seems to be doing a lot of things outside of my power. If that is just my divided Self, than that seems like a western hinduism. Atman=Brahman Self=Universe.
3. The argument from autism. The practical affects of believing you are the only mind in the world, is the praxis of autism.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
I mean the part that interests me most in philosophical terms is the western hinduism claims. I have an interest in philosophical hinduism by way of Schopenhauer. I was wondering once you strip away all the mythology what the difference between pantheistic hinduism and buddhism is. And it turns out that the Self is never totally denied in Hinduism. Rather the Self is the entire universe. To the point of solipsism in philosophical terms. While Buddhism famously denies the self.
>As they increase in complexity, to the point where a whole world is perfectly simulated with perfect consistency, the artist itself complexifies, its non-audience ``self'' splitting up among all the virtual selves it creates. If all of these (you who are reading this, and your dogs and cats too) are really part of the artist, and the artist is equated with the audience, then Solipsism is isomorphic to Pantheism. We are all God, split into all that is. Somehow a Western Solipsist (driven to explain why he cannot bring a loved one back to life no matter how hard he tries) ends up as an Eastern Hindu, accepting that Brahma split himself up to create the Universe (one fragment of which is him, all of which is still Brahma and eternal).
>Rather, how can anything be independent of perception?
Well thats when you start thinking about solipsism.
This is one of the top google hits for solipsism.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
It doesn't really refute solipsism, it admits it can't be logically refuted so it instead relies on the rhetorical arguments from
1. Hedonism- if I control the world I should be in the Islamic heaven with a garden of half naked houris peeling grapes for me.
2. Hinduism- the universe seems to be doing a lot of things outside of my power. If that is just my divided Self, than that seems like a western hinduism. Atman=Brahman Self=Universe.
3. The argument from autism. The practical affects of believing you are the only mind in the world, is the praxis of autism.
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/Philosophy/axioms/axioms/node43.html
I mean the part that interests me most in philosophical terms is the western hinduism claims. I have an interest in philosophical hinduism by way of Schopenhauer. I was wondering once you strip away all the mythology what the difference between pantheistic hinduism and buddhism is. And it turns out that the Self is never totally denied in Hinduism. Rather the Self is the entire universe. To the point of solipsism in philosophical terms. While Buddhism famously denies the self.
>As they increase in complexity, to the point where a whole world is perfectly simulated with perfect consistency, the artist itself complexifies, its non-audience ``self'' splitting up among all the virtual selves it creates. If all of these (you who are reading this, and your dogs and cats too) are really part of the artist, and the artist is equated with the audience, then Solipsism is isomorphic to Pantheism. We are all God, split into all that is. Somehow a Western Solipsist (driven to explain why he cannot bring a loved one back to life no matter how hard he tries) ends up as an Eastern Hindu, accepting that Brahma split himself up to create the Universe (one fragment of which is him, all of which is still Brahma and eternal).
Can you teach me the best Philosophy of Science arguments against the objectivity of science to use against the STEM-worshippers?
By conventional morality neutering and spaying your dogs and only adopting them from shelters would be considered higher than the alternative.
But by Kantian morality you are essentially willing the extermination of the dog species when universalized
But by Kantian morality you are essentially willing the extermination of the dog species when universalized
>>25356
As stupid and over-simplified as a lot of these things are, I kinda like the contrast between hedonism showing a normie couple, and Epicureanism as a NEET all by himself, as illustrating what I consider the low-tier hedonism of Epicureans. Normies hear about materialist hedonist ethics and they think wild orgies. But in fact Epicurean communes just make cheese and eat beans.
As stupid and over-simplified as a lot of these things are, I kinda like the contrast between hedonism showing a normie couple, and Epicureanism as a NEET all by himself, as illustrating what I consider the low-tier hedonism of Epicureans. Normies hear about materialist hedonist ethics and they think wild orgies. But in fact Epicurean communes just make cheese and eat beans.
Do we need Gnosticism when we have Darwinism?
I personally have always been sympathetic to Gnostic philosophical ideas, although having read the original Gnostic texts its much more mythological and pagan, than the simplified Matrix-like narrative of its modern proponents.
And I'm glad to have found a community of likeminded pessimistic, anti-natalist, volcels who are sympathetic to Gnosticism.
But it seems to me like our starting point is the facts of a bad world. And we say its so bad that clearly a malevolent deity must have designed it. When Darwinism and natural sexual selection explains all the badness of the world on its own. And so by Occam's Razor we don't need a Demiurge behind the Big Bang to explain it.
It seems like Gnosticism is mythological language to talk about the bad world and bad humanity, like modern Christianity was a mythological language to talk about the good world and good humanity.
Or the same way optimists see a Good God behind the Big Bang, pessimists see a Bad Demiurge. The Big Bang does lend itself to theistic thinking and Aquinas' First Cause. So if you accept that logic, then you get a Bad Demiurge as the First Cause of a darwinist universe.
I personally have always been sympathetic to Gnostic philosophical ideas, although having read the original Gnostic texts its much more mythological and pagan, than the simplified Matrix-like narrative of its modern proponents.
And I'm glad to have found a community of likeminded pessimistic, anti-natalist, volcels who are sympathetic to Gnosticism.
But it seems to me like our starting point is the facts of a bad world. And we say its so bad that clearly a malevolent deity must have designed it. When Darwinism and natural sexual selection explains all the badness of the world on its own. And so by Occam's Razor we don't need a Demiurge behind the Big Bang to explain it.
It seems like Gnosticism is mythological language to talk about the bad world and bad humanity, like modern Christianity was a mythological language to talk about the good world and good humanity.
Or the same way optimists see a Good God behind the Big Bang, pessimists see a Bad Demiurge. The Big Bang does lend itself to theistic thinking and Aquinas' First Cause. So if you accept that logic, then you get a Bad Demiurge as the First Cause of a darwinist universe.
Despite having an interest in the volcel theology and communities of the Catholic Church, and the logic-chopping of the scholastics, I've had somewhat of a knee jerk dismissive attitude towards Aquinas.
It is ironic that I find the volcel Aquinas too smug and comfortable with this fleshly world than the reformed chad neoplatonist Augustine. The volcel is too fleshy and I prefer the spiritual purity of the reformed chad.
I guess I also took Bertrand Russell's view that Aquinas was not a real philosopher but more a dogmatist for the Catholic Church. Unlike some other medieval philosophers who did real philosophy like Occam, Aberlard, Anselm and Scotus. So even when I studied medieval philosophy, I was into everyone but Aquinas.
Also the focus on his natural theology, makes him read to me like one of the low-level intelligent design apologists arguing with low-level Dawkins atheists today.
So I've only started really giving Aquinas a chance recently. And certainly he is at the very least a gateway into medieval worldview and metaphysics.
And I've been exploring the way in which his Five Ways are an application of Aristotle's Four Causes. And this article sums it up very neatly
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/four-causes-and-five-ways.html
It is ironic that I find the volcel Aquinas too smug and comfortable with this fleshly world than the reformed chad neoplatonist Augustine. The volcel is too fleshy and I prefer the spiritual purity of the reformed chad.
I guess I also took Bertrand Russell's view that Aquinas was not a real philosopher but more a dogmatist for the Catholic Church. Unlike some other medieval philosophers who did real philosophy like Occam, Aberlard, Anselm and Scotus. So even when I studied medieval philosophy, I was into everyone but Aquinas.
Also the focus on his natural theology, makes him read to me like one of the low-level intelligent design apologists arguing with low-level Dawkins atheists today.
So I've only started really giving Aquinas a chance recently. And certainly he is at the very least a gateway into medieval worldview and metaphysics.
And I've been exploring the way in which his Five Ways are an application of Aristotle's Four Causes. And this article sums it up very neatly
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/06/four-causes-and-five-ways.html
It really gets me thinking that Aquinas is as far from Aristotle as Boethius is to us. Like we think of Aquinas as the great Aristotlean, as though Aristotle was a direct influence on him, which he was. And Aristotle was new to the West at the time. But just to think in years he was as removed from Aristotle as Boethius or even Proclus was from us. Just think of a modern 21st century NeoPlatonist and how far he is removed from Boethius and Proclus. And yet no more so than Aquinas from Aristotle.
And even with the pagan Platonist tradition Proclus is as far from Plato, as we are from Aquinas. So Proclus was a Platonist, in the same sense a Jesuit teaching today at Notre Dame is a Thomist.
I'm not sure what to gather from this, other than history moved slower in the old days just like a Civ2 game
And even with the pagan Platonist tradition Proclus is as far from Plato, as we are from Aquinas. So Proclus was a Platonist, in the same sense a Jesuit teaching today at Notre Dame is a Thomist.
I'm not sure what to gather from this, other than history moved slower in the old days just like a Civ2 game
Should I even care about people? If a million people die, that just leaves another million people to fill in the gap. If a large amount of people died in my field, that just leaves me to take in the jobs and money. Should I care? I don't think those people do anything for me, and they're replaceable anyways. The only thing that could screw up is if the government does something stupid and screws up the economy while trying to fill in the gaps.
These days Stoicism has been popularized as self-help and you can find a million youtube vids on that topic. People even try to sell you the Stoic mindset to get rich, by not caring about being rich. Obviously you do care.
Now I'll admit I was 1st attracted to the pop Stoics like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. The slave and the Emperor. How to be a tough guy and not care about pain.
But in all spheres of philosophy I have moved from ethics to ontology. I don't care about human relations anymore. And only about philosophy at its most abstract.
So instead of Marcus and Epictetus. Now I'm studying Chrysippus a direct student of Zeno the founder. Stoic logic was much more sophisticated than Aristotle and prefigures the modern predicate logic of Frege and the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysippus#Logic
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/#Sto
Getting back to the ethics and worldview of the Stoics, its interesting how their logic is not separate from it but part of their deterministic, materialist and rationalist worldview.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/chrysipp/
The Stoics form of logic can be seen as the form IF X, THEN Y. And you can see how that relates back to Stoic ethics in a work like Epictetus where its IF X terrible thing happens, THEN y will be the consequence, but in my Mind y cannot hurt me.
Now I'll admit I was 1st attracted to the pop Stoics like Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius. The slave and the Emperor. How to be a tough guy and not care about pain.
But in all spheres of philosophy I have moved from ethics to ontology. I don't care about human relations anymore. And only about philosophy at its most abstract.
So instead of Marcus and Epictetus. Now I'm studying Chrysippus a direct student of Zeno the founder. Stoic logic was much more sophisticated than Aristotle and prefigures the modern predicate logic of Frege and the 20th century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysippus#Logic
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-ancient/#Sto
Getting back to the ethics and worldview of the Stoics, its interesting how their logic is not separate from it but part of their deterministic, materialist and rationalist worldview.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/chrysipp/
The Stoics form of logic can be seen as the form IF X, THEN Y. And you can see how that relates back to Stoic ethics in a work like Epictetus where its IF X terrible thing happens, THEN y will be the consequence, but in my Mind y cannot hurt me.
What’s a good way for a beginner to approach philosophy? What books would you recommend and which philosophers should I be looking into?
>>43272
If you mean western philosophy then the usual strategy is starting with the Greeks, namely Plato as well as earlier ones who we know about through Plato (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, etc), Diogenes, Epicurus and Aristotle. After that maybe Roman Stoicism.
If you mean western philosophy then the usual strategy is starting with the Greeks, namely Plato as well as earlier ones who we know about through Plato (Heraclitus, Parmenides, Socrates, etc), Diogenes, Epicurus and Aristotle. After that maybe Roman Stoicism.
>>43272
I enjoy just skimming this
https://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
it really gives you a feel of just how wide philosophy is. Just pick a topic you're already interested in and search it and there will probably be an article documenting the philosophy of x.
I enjoy just skimming this
https://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
it really gives you a feel of just how wide philosophy is. Just pick a topic you're already interested in and search it and there will probably be an article documenting the philosophy of x.
>>43272
I have been really enjoying the podcast called Philosophise This.
It is free and give a good casual into to different philosophers and philosophies. I mainly use it as a refresher and background stimulation but it also would be a good start point to get you interested in diving deeper.
I have been really enjoying the podcast called Philosophise This.
It is free and give a good casual into to different philosophers and philosophies. I mainly use it as a refresher and background stimulation but it also would be a good start point to get you interested in diving deeper.
File: 1524682246407.png (1.37 MB, 800x1166, 400:583, Horakhty, the Creator of L….png) ImgOps iqdb
>>29380
The following card has is own type (creator god) and has a name(Horakhty, the Creator of light). When you're referring to this type monster, you're obligatory referring to the card's name and vice versa.
If this explanation is valuable, found something like that in the nature (if it is possible).
The following card has is own type (creator god) and has a name(Horakhty, the Creator of light). When you're referring to this type monster, you're obligatory referring to the card's name and vice versa.
If this explanation is valuable, found something like that in the nature (if it is possible).
>>43272
This guy has tons of stuff online, good philosophy professor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngk0tLuls1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGoEcDzvDjk&list=PL24E8CD3214E5C748
https://www.quora.com/I-want-to-read-the-works-of-great-philosophers-In-what-order-should-I-read-them/answer/Greg-Sadler-7
Going through a big history of philosophy would be good as well. I'd recommend the one by F.C. Copplestone but it is like 8000 pages.
This guy has tons of stuff online, good philosophy professor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngk0tLuls1w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGoEcDzvDjk&list=PL24E8CD3214E5C748
https://www.quora.com/I-want-to-read-the-works-of-great-philosophers-In-what-order-should-I-read-them/answer/Greg-Sadler-7
Going through a big history of philosophy would be good as well. I'd recommend the one by F.C. Copplestone but it is like 8000 pages.
>>43414
In all my years of playing I have never seen someone actually pull off that win condition.
You would have better luck using a trolly exodia deck that has the potential to FTK.
In all my years of playing I have never seen someone actually pull off that win condition.
You would have better luck using a trolly exodia deck that has the potential to FTK.
Alright, it's probably going to take me a couple of weeks to get through this thread, but I'm looking forward to contribute. I'll do multiple posts on my ideas on the presented philosophical problems.
Free Will vs Determinality
>without free will there can be no morality, no right and wrong, no good and evil
But the fact that we can instinctually feel when something is wrong, immoral, evil, etc., is proof enough that the opposites of those things (right, moral, good) must exist also. Quite commonly, when something nice happens to you, or you do something nice to somebody else, you recognise it as ‘nice’, therefore there must be some kind of intuitive, natural, organic understanding that what you are doing is considered a good thing. To have the choice between doing something that feels right or wrong, we should be able to recognise that as ‘Free Will’, otherwise if things were truly already determined, we would only feel grey, as neither good or evil exist, because choice does not exist.
>if we examine these words free-will and determinism carefully we find they do not exist in physical reality
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, because how can it not exist if it can be perceived?
If anything, the individual has free will, but where they’re supposed to end up as the individual is most-likely predetermined by the other side of the universe: the metaphysical. Yet, because you can choose not to go down that path (even if the other side encourages it by placing coincidental obstacles and pathways to get you there), it can be proved that there is free will, but also predetermined outcomes.
>an infinite system of waves in infinite space can never be pre-determined
And when taking Quantum theory into account, as well as understanding that the universe is fractalised, it’s much easier to stand that there are infinite choices, as well as infinite outcomes. If there is any way to understand how to make choices that will traverse your consciousness through different fractals, you can make different choices each day, then feel the differences between each of those individual days through experience. For example, to go down the fractal of murdering a person on the way to work (instead of the one where you don’t), you will entirely place your consciousness on a different fractal of the universe, thus changing the feeling of the rest of that day. Being in a different part of the universe (even when speaking of fractals) proves that there are different energetic frequencies that can be metaphysically felt throughout the experience.
>Thus when I have complete knowledge of the system then there is no chance involved - the system is necessarily connected and pre-determined.
Yet there was a choice made in order to create the predetermination in the first place by choosing to understand the system.
>Repeating Interconnected Motion
>e.g. Watching a pendulum (any clock)
>This motion can be determined and gives rise to certainty in the near future (this is the source of all logic).
Although, the pendulum could stop swinging at any given moment, be it a power outage, a jam, or any other unforeseeable situation that comes from (chance). Even when taking this into consideration, focusing your thoughts towards quantum theory would prove that there is also a fractal in which none of those outcomes could’ve happened.
>Certainty exists when we do have pre-determined knowledge
But only on the fractals in which that outcome is certain, meaning that also in the other fractals the outcome would be different, but also certain for that specific fractal. It would all have to do with which fractal you’re on, which happens as a result of the choices made through free will, either by you, or another individual’s former decision that has provoked the different outcome.
>The mind makes decisions based upon its programming which is determined by an interplay between our genes and our physical and cultural environment
As well as the understanding that has been ingrained in our intuitions, which came from our brains which were composed of physical energy before decaying and becoming metaphysical energy until once more forming as the physical brain of another being.
>we can program ourselves - this is the source of our freedom
But the way we end up programmed isn’t quite a matter of freedom, since the programming comes from the understanding of negative experiences that happen in your physical brain’s lifetime.
>It is how we educate our minds, where we choose to live, that ultimately determines the interplay between chance and certainty that decides on the things we will choose to do.
And the knowledge kept in intuition is what determines how we will make decisions in the future, but it will still be the act of making a decision which proves free will.
>Albert Einstein on Determinism
> Schopenhauer's words, 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants'
But what he has learned to want is based upon the choices that either led to failure or success in previous experiences.
> Why has the will an influence over the tongue and fingers, not over the heart or liver? (David Hume, 1737)
Because your tongue and fingers are controlled by conscious decisions (choices) that you make in order to interact with them, whereas your heart and liver work on a subconscious level, where it is not a choice in order for you to continue consciously interacting with your tongue and fingers.
>I shall say that I know with certainty that he is not to put his hand into the fire and hold it there till it be consumed: And this event, I think I can foretell with the same assurance, as that, if he throw himself out at the window, and meet with no obstruction, he will not remain a moment suspended in the air. (David Hume, 1737)
>By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. (David Hume, 1737)
Yeah, like, no shit.
I think Stalin may have been David Hume’s reincarnate; their spirits match, and you can feel that when looking into their eyes.
>Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing, (David Hume, 1737)
Or, are all actions actually just interconnected as an ongoing, singular action?
Free Will vs Determinality
>without free will there can be no morality, no right and wrong, no good and evil
But the fact that we can instinctually feel when something is wrong, immoral, evil, etc., is proof enough that the opposites of those things (right, moral, good) must exist also. Quite commonly, when something nice happens to you, or you do something nice to somebody else, you recognise it as ‘nice’, therefore there must be some kind of intuitive, natural, organic understanding that what you are doing is considered a good thing. To have the choice between doing something that feels right or wrong, we should be able to recognise that as ‘Free Will’, otherwise if things were truly already determined, we would only feel grey, as neither good or evil exist, because choice does not exist.
>if we examine these words free-will and determinism carefully we find they do not exist in physical reality
But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, because how can it not exist if it can be perceived?
If anything, the individual has free will, but where they’re supposed to end up as the individual is most-likely predetermined by the other side of the universe: the metaphysical. Yet, because you can choose not to go down that path (even if the other side encourages it by placing coincidental obstacles and pathways to get you there), it can be proved that there is free will, but also predetermined outcomes.
>an infinite system of waves in infinite space can never be pre-determined
And when taking Quantum theory into account, as well as understanding that the universe is fractalised, it’s much easier to stand that there are infinite choices, as well as infinite outcomes. If there is any way to understand how to make choices that will traverse your consciousness through different fractals, you can make different choices each day, then feel the differences between each of those individual days through experience. For example, to go down the fractal of murdering a person on the way to work (instead of the one where you don’t), you will entirely place your consciousness on a different fractal of the universe, thus changing the feeling of the rest of that day. Being in a different part of the universe (even when speaking of fractals) proves that there are different energetic frequencies that can be metaphysically felt throughout the experience.
>Thus when I have complete knowledge of the system then there is no chance involved - the system is necessarily connected and pre-determined.
Yet there was a choice made in order to create the predetermination in the first place by choosing to understand the system.
>Repeating Interconnected Motion
>e.g. Watching a pendulum (any clock)
>This motion can be determined and gives rise to certainty in the near future (this is the source of all logic).
Although, the pendulum could stop swinging at any given moment, be it a power outage, a jam, or any other unforeseeable situation that comes from (chance). Even when taking this into consideration, focusing your thoughts towards quantum theory would prove that there is also a fractal in which none of those outcomes could’ve happened.
>Certainty exists when we do have pre-determined knowledge
But only on the fractals in which that outcome is certain, meaning that also in the other fractals the outcome would be different, but also certain for that specific fractal. It would all have to do with which fractal you’re on, which happens as a result of the choices made through free will, either by you, or another individual’s former decision that has provoked the different outcome.
>The mind makes decisions based upon its programming which is determined by an interplay between our genes and our physical and cultural environment
As well as the understanding that has been ingrained in our intuitions, which came from our brains which were composed of physical energy before decaying and becoming metaphysical energy until once more forming as the physical brain of another being.
>we can program ourselves - this is the source of our freedom
But the way we end up programmed isn’t quite a matter of freedom, since the programming comes from the understanding of negative experiences that happen in your physical brain’s lifetime.
>It is how we educate our minds, where we choose to live, that ultimately determines the interplay between chance and certainty that decides on the things we will choose to do.
And the knowledge kept in intuition is what determines how we will make decisions in the future, but it will still be the act of making a decision which proves free will.
>Albert Einstein on Determinism
> Schopenhauer's words, 'Man can indeed do what he wants, but he cannot want what he wants'
But what he has learned to want is based upon the choices that either led to failure or success in previous experiences.
> Why has the will an influence over the tongue and fingers, not over the heart or liver? (David Hume, 1737)
Because your tongue and fingers are controlled by conscious decisions (choices) that you make in order to interact with them, whereas your heart and liver work on a subconscious level, where it is not a choice in order for you to continue consciously interacting with your tongue and fingers.
>I shall say that I know with certainty that he is not to put his hand into the fire and hold it there till it be consumed: And this event, I think I can foretell with the same assurance, as that, if he throw himself out at the window, and meet with no obstruction, he will not remain a moment suspended in the air. (David Hume, 1737)
>By liberty, then, we can only mean a power of acting or not acting, according to the determinations of the will; that is, if we choose to remain at rest, we may; if we choose to move, we also may. (David Hume, 1737)
Yeah, like, no shit.
I think Stalin may have been David Hume’s reincarnate; their spirits match, and you can feel that when looking into their eyes.
>Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing, (David Hume, 1737)
Or, are all actions actually just interconnected as an ongoing, singular action?
File: 1530728797270.jpg (46.5 KB, 474x661, 474:661, th.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>What Wittgenstein is suggesting here is that the ultimate truth and nature of free will, knowledge, consciousness, determinism, happiness, justice, and the inward heart cannot be reduced in language to simpler elements or derived from more general principles because languages are not consistently empirical in that way. Languages are logic and rule based games, historically contingent. They can’t step out of their usages in specific contexts and do things they aren’t designed to do. And so the philosopher’s wisest chess move, on being confronted with a metaphysical provocation (“What is truth?” “What is time?” “What is equality in relation to liberty?”) is silence, to not move at all.
>>44347
One more thing to add: it is the universe that chooses how things will be, but it is the individual who makes the choice through free-will on how he is to get there.
One more thing to add: it is the universe that chooses how things will be, but it is the individual who makes the choice through free-will on how he is to get there.
>>25266
>The ultimate question is why is there something rather than nothing?
First, answer me this: Why nothing, rather than something?
>Would the creation of a universe such as this be justified?
For them to have created it, they must've had some kind of justification in doing so.
>Would it be better if there was nothing at all?
It wouldn't matter because it cannot be experienced. This leads me to believe that 'nothing' is purely a concept that doesn't exist. Even when perceiving the space between two objects, its not that you are perceiving nothing, because you are perceiving the space.
>The ultimate question is why is there something rather than nothing?
First, answer me this: Why nothing, rather than something?
>Would the creation of a universe such as this be justified?
For them to have created it, they must've had some kind of justification in doing so.
>Would it be better if there was nothing at all?
It wouldn't matter because it cannot be experienced. This leads me to believe that 'nothing' is purely a concept that doesn't exist. Even when perceiving the space between two objects, its not that you are perceiving nothing, because you are perceiving the space.
>>26242
>History is my God
Then I'm afraid to inform you, your God is whoever won the most recent war. The victors lie.
>History is my God
Then I'm afraid to inform you, your God is whoever won the most recent war. The victors lie.
>>27486
I think that if Stirner existed in this day and age, they wouldn't leave their house and be extremely suicidal because they would have no desire to participate in a world built on slavery at all.
I think that if Stirner existed in this day and age, they wouldn't leave their house and be extremely suicidal because they would have no desire to participate in a world built on slavery at all.
>>27803
>How do Atheist Wizards find meaning in life?
Via forming qigong chiballs for 10 minutes every day, and having trust in your abilities.
You can't create your own meaning, you already have it. You just need to discover it.
1. Get in a comfortable position.
2. Relax your mind.
3. Take full breaths, filling your diaphragm.
4. Hold your hands up an shape them as if you're carrying something.
5. Explicitly intend in your mind to create a chiball ("I want to create a chiball"), and start moving your hands in whatever way feels natural to grow the chiball.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
>How do Atheist Wizards find meaning in life?
Via forming qigong chiballs for 10 minutes every day, and having trust in your abilities.
You can't create your own meaning, you already have it. You just need to discover it.
1. Get in a comfortable position.
2. Relax your mind.
3. Take full breaths, filling your diaphragm.
4. Hold your hands up an shape them as if you're carrying something.
5. Explicitly intend in your mind to create a chiball ("I want to create a chiball"), and start moving your hands in whatever way feels natural to grow the chiball.
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
>>42085
>teach me arguments
Learn them yourself, otherwise you're just proving that you're in denial of being wrong.
>teach me arguments
Learn them yourself, otherwise you're just proving that you're in denial of being wrong.
will jordan peterson be remembered as one of the greats alongside kant nietzsche and plato and all those guys?
>>44745
Yeah I think.
Especially if he ends up paying dearly for his convictions.
Although I have no idea if Nietzsche and Plato were recognized as history's greatest during their life.
Yeah I think.
Especially if he ends up paying dearly for his convictions.
Although I have no idea if Nietzsche and Plato were recognized as history's greatest during their life.
I've been having this fantasy that I should have been a Scholastic metaphysician and made some use out of my volceldom. But then I feel like 70 years in a library isn't too different than what I'm doing now. Is it so important to put a career label on it?
The good thing about angelic as opposed to secular philosophy, is that on my deathbed I'd know why I did it, what the point of it was.
Just logic-chopping and dissecting the old Thomist categories, being, essence, existence, form, content, potentiality, actuality, agent intellect etc.
The good thing about angelic as opposed to secular philosophy, is that on my deathbed I'd know why I did it, what the point of it was.
Just logic-chopping and dissecting the old Thomist categories, being, essence, existence, form, content, potentiality, actuality, agent intellect etc.
Its weird that Aquinas has the best volcel story of any philosopher, and yet I can't shake the feeling of him as a common sense, wordly normie, too comfortable and at home in this earth. And yet Augustine who represents the opposite tradition was a reformed chad. And all the Protestants and secular philosophers were sexhavers.
There are some other possibly celibate philosophers, assumed celibates as they never married or recorded relationships. But its rather incidental to their life and philosophy.
While Aquinas fending off a literal succubus with fire, is core to his calling.
I just read the short GK Chesterton bio of him.
I suppose anyone who has such a wonderful volcel story, must have ideas worth hearing. He is a better volcel than me. Who am I to judge him for being too worldly?
There are some other possibly celibate philosophers, assumed celibates as they never married or recorded relationships. But its rather incidental to their life and philosophy.
While Aquinas fending off a literal succubus with fire, is core to his calling.
I just read the short GK Chesterton bio of him.
I suppose anyone who has such a wonderful volcel story, must have ideas worth hearing. He is a better volcel than me. Who am I to judge him for being too worldly?
When I look at all Aquinas had to give up, not just in relations, but in prestige and power, from a high aristocratic political family. And I contrast that with the impossibility of my normie life. What a bargain it is that I can purchase the same Dominican status. What a high price for him, what a low price for me. And yet while I aspire to volcel morality, I'm not asexual, and what allows me to be so comfortable in my virgin position, is my constant fapping, relieving the pressure. It would be such a torture to be a nofap volcel never releasing it. I'm so judgemental toward aspects of the Catholic Church. But like Socrates searching for the wiseman, I spent my teens searching for the one good man, a true volcel. And the Thomists were right in front of me, doing so in the thousands, all along.
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=esse
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=esse
>>46226
The biggest examples of wizardry are more probably to be found among those who followed mystical lives, as inspired by the fathers of the desert. The scholastic method of logical dissection is in itself "worldly", and Aquinas may himself have realized that as he later in life claimed his works were nothing but straw.
The biggest examples of wizardry are more probably to be found among those who followed mystical lives, as inspired by the fathers of the desert. The scholastic method of logical dissection is in itself "worldly", and Aquinas may himself have realized that as he later in life claimed his works were nothing but straw.
>>46244
I feel like there is more extroversion in living out your spirituality, than just quietly reading and writing in a monastic library
I feel like there is more extroversion in living out your spirituality, than just quietly reading and writing in a monastic library
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3152.htm
Aquinas on the superiority of volcels
>I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking "on the things of God" [Vulgate: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and succubus who embrace the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.
Aquinas on the superiority of volcels
>I answer that, According to Jerome (Contra Jovin. i) the error of Jovinian consisted in holding virginity not to be preferable to marriage. This error is refuted above all by the example of Christ Who both chose a virgin for His mother, and remained Himself a virgin, and by the teaching of the Apostle who (1 Corinthians 7) counsels virginity as the greater good. It is also refuted by reason, both because a Divine good takes precedence of a human good, and because the good of the soul is preferable to the good of the body, and again because the good of the contemplative life is better than that of the active life. Now virginity is directed to the good of the soul in respect of the contemplative life, which consists in thinking "on the things of God" [Vulgate: 'the Lord'], whereas marriage is directed to the good of the body, namely the bodily increase of the human race, and belongs to the active life, since the man and succubus who embrace the married life have to think "on the things of the world," as the Apostle says (1 Corinthians 7:34). Without doubt therefore virginity is preferable to conjugal continence.
>>46251
Not sure. You always read from someone and write to someone. Many of the subjects treated wouldn't even be of relevance to a man outside of society.
Not sure. You always read from someone and write to someone. Many of the subjects treated wouldn't even be of relevance to a man outside of society.
>>27803
I like to think that the meaning of life is to give life meaning, this goes for believers too.
I created my meaning of life and my goals, even though by normal standards(which mean nothing to me) i was born to lose: poor with average-high iq(don't even need it to enjoy what i do), ugly and no social skills.
I just picked something, computers for instance, and put everything there, sometimes i lose focus and just drift around doing whatever, but those times are painful since i rather focus on one thing only; but when i go back i can code for days straight.
I like to think that the meaning of life is to give life meaning, this goes for believers too.
I created my meaning of life and my goals, even though by normal standards(which mean nothing to me) i was born to lose: poor with average-high iq(don't even need it to enjoy what i do), ugly and no social skills.
I just picked something, computers for instance, and put everything there, sometimes i lose focus and just drift around doing whatever, but those times are painful since i rather focus on one thing only; but when i go back i can code for days straight.
Anyone know of people I should read around the theme of Wittgenstein's quietism and a kind of emotivist/nihilistic account of language? I'm looking at language being categorised in its use by the emotional state of the individual, and, knowing what you're using language for. For some people language and philosophy is tied to striving for affirmation or enforcing it, but, others are using it to manage their decline towards death.
>>25265
>Free Will vs Determinism
Neither. You can compare the problem to throwing a die. The result will be either 1,2,3,4,5,6 and this is determined but it is not determined if it is i.e. 4.
Also it is not possible to be free in preferences. Schopenhauer: a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
You cannot know it. Although you can assume it, due to language. Because when I use the word green, you understand what I mean and vice versa.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Materialism. Although reality can't be proved without assuming an observer. Idealism is like a form of schizophrenia. It confuses metaphers, language and ideas for reality. Yet the structure of the ideas is found in a materialistic nature.
>Does God exist?
Ulitmately, this depends on what your definition of god is.
The biblical god however is only a fictional character. It is a personification of justice and works like an invisible, omnipresent police officer. To understand that it is necessary to konw that the ancient jews were both judges and priests and this jews invented god. It was necessary or else there was no incentive to hold to the law. If the law was only written then everyone would have applied the victorian principle (if no one sees me doing it it is allowed), but with god this is impossible because you will be judged eventually.
>what is the meaning of life?
just look at the picture someone posted above
>is sexual reproduction immoral?
No. Moral does not exist anyway. It only exists in the mind.
>Are morals culturally relative?
Obviously. Morals are always relative. Also look to the previous question.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Yes. Hume: No man every threw away life while it was worth keeping. Plato: No one knows wheter death, which people fear to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.
To justify something rationally always depends on the axioms, definitions, preassumptions you use. If you use the assumptions of Plato or Hume it can be rationally justified.
>Do categories objectivly exist?
No. Categories are always arbitrary. This is also only in the mind.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Yes. Sociobiology and evolution found the most successive strategies for humans, or else they would not have survived. So to some extent you can speak of a universal human nature.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
This depends on your definition of "more important".
At least I want to give an example that might help to make a decision: Someone wants to kill you with a knife from behind, but he fails because you turn around and say: hey you intended to kill me and he says: that is right but I have not done it. Second case then is: Someone pays no attention and stabs you with a knife and then you say: hey you stabbed me with a knife and he says: that is right but it was not my intention.
Maybe that helps to find an answer to wheter intentions or consequences are more important.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
Yes. The character and ideas you have, mainly depend on your brain structure. So it depends on genetics and experiences, because these things are relevant for neuro plasticity. Neuro plasticity forms the brain and the brain froms the ideas.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
both are important. The problem with rationalism is that it uses deduction from definitions that are based on induction and the problem with empiricism is that it uses induction from observations that were not logically deduced.
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
-
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Knowledge is the structure of data or information. So whenever you structure raw data into some form, sequence or whatever, then you have some kind of knowledge. So yeah, it may be socially situated.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
this question is somewhat ambiguous. Is this question about if time exists or if people can learn from history and consequently progress?
If it is about if time exists I would say no, as time is also a category which only exists in the mind. If it is about if people can learn from history then I would say most probably not. People cannot break out of their nature. They have genes and have evolved for a long period of time. Meaning that the times and the technology might change but not the problems of the humans like rich vs poor and many others. Althogh evolution has not stopped yet so maybe someday a mutation might occur that changes human behaviour significantly. If that happens I would speak of "historical progress".
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
You cannot know that but you can assume it. Also look to question 2 from above
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
Living to your preferences (definitions of good) I guess. But I honestly don't know.
At least this are my answers. I also don't know but that are my conclusions so far.
tl;dr skeptical materialistic nihilism
>Free Will vs Determinism
Neither. You can compare the problem to throwing a die. The result will be either 1,2,3,4,5,6 and this is determined but it is not determined if it is i.e. 4.
Also it is not possible to be free in preferences. Schopenhauer: a man can surely do what he wills to do, but cannot determine what he wills.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
You cannot know it. Although you can assume it, due to language. Because when I use the word green, you understand what I mean and vice versa.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Materialism. Although reality can't be proved without assuming an observer. Idealism is like a form of schizophrenia. It confuses metaphers, language and ideas for reality. Yet the structure of the ideas is found in a materialistic nature.
>Does God exist?
Ulitmately, this depends on what your definition of god is.
The biblical god however is only a fictional character. It is a personification of justice and works like an invisible, omnipresent police officer. To understand that it is necessary to konw that the ancient jews were both judges and priests and this jews invented god. It was necessary or else there was no incentive to hold to the law. If the law was only written then everyone would have applied the victorian principle (if no one sees me doing it it is allowed), but with god this is impossible because you will be judged eventually.
>what is the meaning of life?
just look at the picture someone posted above
>is sexual reproduction immoral?
No. Moral does not exist anyway. It only exists in the mind.
>Are morals culturally relative?
Obviously. Morals are always relative. Also look to the previous question.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Yes. Hume: No man every threw away life while it was worth keeping. Plato: No one knows wheter death, which people fear to be the greatest evil, may not be the greatest good.
To justify something rationally always depends on the axioms, definitions, preassumptions you use. If you use the assumptions of Plato or Hume it can be rationally justified.
>Do categories objectivly exist?
No. Categories are always arbitrary. This is also only in the mind.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Yes. Sociobiology and evolution found the most successive strategies for humans, or else they would not have survived. So to some extent you can speak of a universal human nature.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
This depends on your definition of "more important".
At least I want to give an example that might help to make a decision: Someone wants to kill you with a knife from behind, but he fails because you turn around and say: hey you intended to kill me and he says: that is right but I have not done it. Second case then is: Someone pays no attention and stabs you with a knife and then you say: hey you stabbed me with a knife and he says: that is right but it was not my intention.
Maybe that helps to find an answer to wheter intentions or consequences are more important.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
Yes. The character and ideas you have, mainly depend on your brain structure. So it depends on genetics and experiences, because these things are relevant for neuro plasticity. Neuro plasticity forms the brain and the brain froms the ideas.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
both are important. The problem with rationalism is that it uses deduction from definitions that are based on induction and the problem with empiricism is that it uses induction from observations that were not logically deduced.
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
-
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Knowledge is the structure of data or information. So whenever you structure raw data into some form, sequence or whatever, then you have some kind of knowledge. So yeah, it may be socially situated.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
this question is somewhat ambiguous. Is this question about if time exists or if people can learn from history and consequently progress?
If it is about if time exists I would say no, as time is also a category which only exists in the mind. If it is about if people can learn from history then I would say most probably not. People cannot break out of their nature. They have genes and have evolved for a long period of time. Meaning that the times and the technology might change but not the problems of the humans like rich vs poor and many others. Althogh evolution has not stopped yet so maybe someday a mutation might occur that changes human behaviour significantly. If that happens I would speak of "historical progress".
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
You cannot know that but you can assume it. Also look to question 2 from above
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
Living to your preferences (definitions of good) I guess. But I honestly don't know.
At least this are my answers. I also don't know but that are my conclusions so far.
tl;dr skeptical materialistic nihilism
File: 1549811359148.jpg (186.43 KB, 1200x1200, 1:1, 1549451122419.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
File: 1550806060912.png (447.25 KB, 800x800, 1:1, Darjeeling 080.png) ImgOps iqdb
I will answer all of your questions.
>Free Will vs Determinism
Free will itself is determined.
>Qualia: How do I know that my colour green is the same for you?
You don't know it's exactly the same but through cultural phenomenon and such it's reasonable to assume they are similar for us both. For example, red is seen as an aggressive, passionate colour, If I saw it as red and you saw what I see as red as blue it would not be such a universal idea.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Why vs?
>Does God exist?
No.
>What is the meaning of life?
There is none.
>Is sexual reproduction immoral?
Why would it be? We are animals, animals must reproduce.
>Are morals culturally relative?
Some are in some ways.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Yes, anything can.
>Do categories objectively exist?
Yes.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
There is a base universal human nature.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Intentions.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
To an extent.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
Again, why vs?
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Both awful.
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Both.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
To whom, in what field and in what way? Progress is not so simple as one single linear line that all agree on.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
Because everybody has this same thought.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
It's up to you to decide.
>Free Will vs Determinism
Free will itself is determined.
>Qualia: How do I know that my colour green is the same for you?
You don't know it's exactly the same but through cultural phenomenon and such it's reasonable to assume they are similar for us both. For example, red is seen as an aggressive, passionate colour, If I saw it as red and you saw what I see as red as blue it would not be such a universal idea.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Why vs?
>Does God exist?
No.
>What is the meaning of life?
There is none.
>Is sexual reproduction immoral?
Why would it be? We are animals, animals must reproduce.
>Are morals culturally relative?
Some are in some ways.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Yes, anything can.
>Do categories objectively exist?
Yes.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
There is a base universal human nature.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Intentions.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
To an extent.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
Again, why vs?
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Both awful.
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Both.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
To whom, in what field and in what way? Progress is not so simple as one single linear line that all agree on.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
Because everybody has this same thought.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
It's up to you to decide.
File: 1552018806116.jpg (884.44 KB, 800x1045, 160:209, 2018_14_philosopher_illo_t….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
Just posting a nice little piece I came across about Bryan Magee from last year.
>Philosopher Bryan Magee remains wonder-struck by the ultimate questions: Now, in old age, he lives in one room in a nursing hospital – yet his mind still roams restlessly free.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/even-old-age-philosopher-bryan-magee-remains-wonder-struck-ultimate-questions
>Philosopher Bryan Magee remains wonder-struck by the ultimate questions: Now, in old age, he lives in one room in a nursing hospital – yet his mind still roams restlessly free.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/04/even-old-age-philosopher-bryan-magee-remains-wonder-struck-ultimate-questions
>>47450
I remember reading that and thought about writing him a letter telling him how many views he'd had on youtube since all his old shows are on there. Letting him know people still find his work very valuable. You can get in contact via his agent - I assumed he has people he talks to though so I never did. He was a big fan of schopenhauer and I've got his books; just never read them properly.
I remember reading that and thought about writing him a letter telling him how many views he'd had on youtube since all his old shows are on there. Letting him know people still find his work very valuable. You can get in contact via his agent - I assumed he has people he talks to though so I never did. He was a big fan of schopenhauer and I've got his books; just never read them properly.
>>47155
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
I also would like to answer that question, because then it is complete and I have given an answer to every question.
Neither. Both philosophies can offer interesting thoughts, but analytical and continental philosophy have their limitations. The problem with analytical philosophy is that the formal logic in itself is not perfect and has to rely on metaphysics, because the preassumptions and definitions can never be deduced logically or defined logically. The problem with continental philosophy is that they do not have clear and intuitive definitions. This means continental philosophy is like a carousel. It can never really progress, as they don't have a solid fundament.
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
I also would like to answer that question, because then it is complete and I have given an answer to every question.
Neither. Both philosophies can offer interesting thoughts, but analytical and continental philosophy have their limitations. The problem with analytical philosophy is that the formal logic in itself is not perfect and has to rely on metaphysics, because the preassumptions and definitions can never be deduced logically or defined logically. The problem with continental philosophy is that they do not have clear and intuitive definitions. This means continental philosophy is like a carousel. It can never really progress, as they don't have a solid fundament.
>Realize I've been living in a philosophy-less life where I don't know what to do so I pick nothing
>Looking into stoicism gave me a slight anxiety decrease and an illusion of direction
I'm too anxious to make decisions on my own so I decided to look into philo and stoics were my first pick. I've decided to make the stoics the backbone of my beliefs right now and then branch out into borrowing other concepts from other philosophies that fit me.
Do you guys do this too? How do you personally follow philosophy?
>Looking into stoicism gave me a slight anxiety decrease and an illusion of direction
I'm too anxious to make decisions on my own so I decided to look into philo and stoics were my first pick. I've decided to make the stoics the backbone of my beliefs right now and then branch out into borrowing other concepts from other philosophies that fit me.
Do you guys do this too? How do you personally follow philosophy?
>>47740
thats actually what i did as well, but i studied most of the early greek philosophers before making any decision. cynicism and stoicism for different reasons were my favorites
thats actually what i did as well, but i studied most of the early greek philosophers before making any decision. cynicism and stoicism for different reasons were my favorites
>>44348
He's right. Human language lacks the granularity to discuss these things. Philosophy is verbal onanism flailing impotently at truth quite immanent and accessible via nonverbal introspection. The best it can do is prod people in various directions and at its worst shit out political homonculi like communism and fascism.
He's right. Human language lacks the granularity to discuss these things. Philosophy is verbal onanism flailing impotently at truth quite immanent and accessible via nonverbal introspection. The best it can do is prod people in various directions and at its worst shit out political homonculi like communism and fascism.
>>25265
>How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
Is this actually being asked? It was answered by philosophers like 100 years ago while addressing solipsism. Don't the schools still teach basic empiricism?
>How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
Is this actually being asked? It was answered by philosophers like 100 years ago while addressing solipsism. Don't the schools still teach basic empiricism?
>>47759
it related with me the most. my whole life i always tried to not react with emotions to things good or bad. i saw emotions as barbaric, something everyone else used as fuel. so as a child i ate less food so others could have mine, not complain, do what i was told, never cry, not spend money, ignore bullying, sleep on floor. in general if it was an uncomfortable experience i sought it out without complaining, out of a belief it made me stronger spiritually
it related with me the most. my whole life i always tried to not react with emotions to things good or bad. i saw emotions as barbaric, something everyone else used as fuel. so as a child i ate less food so others could have mine, not complain, do what i was told, never cry, not spend money, ignore bullying, sleep on floor. in general if it was an uncomfortable experience i sought it out without complaining, out of a belief it made me stronger spiritually
>>47761
for many questions there are a surprising number, all from different schools of thought. basically the correct one us whichever you like best.
for many questions there are a surprising number, all from different schools of thought. basically the correct one us whichever you like best.
>>47764
>basically the correct one us whichever you like best.
That's retarded. There's an objective reality and we can empirically verify that our (not drugged or colorblind) sense perception of green is the same. It's not a matter of belief.
>basically the correct one us whichever you like best.
That's retarded. There's an objective reality and we can empirically verify that our (not drugged or colorblind) sense perception of green is the same. It's not a matter of belief.
>>47769
i'm not wrong. philosophy isn't entirely objective, and there are numerous "answers" for everything.
i'm not wrong. philosophy isn't entirely objective, and there are numerous "answers" for everything.
>>47761
You cannot know it. Although you can assume it, due to language. Because when I use the word green, you understand what I mean and vice versa.
examples:
1) you pass the street when the traffic light is green. This is an example that suggests that everyone (or at least the most) know what green is.
2) if I tell you do you see the person over there with the green jacket then you also know which person is meant (assuming there is only one person with a green jacket).
There are endless examples. But I suppose you know what I mean.
You cannot know it. Although you can assume it, due to language. Because when I use the word green, you understand what I mean and vice versa.
examples:
1) you pass the street when the traffic light is green. This is an example that suggests that everyone (or at least the most) know what green is.
2) if I tell you do you see the person over there with the green jacket then you also know which person is meant (assuming there is only one person with a green jacket).
There are endless examples. But I suppose you know what I mean.
>>47780
>ignoring the concept of "Qualia"
All I've been doing is addressing it. It's nonsense. You have the same rods and cones in your eyes as everyone else and corneas that block UV color perception and so on. So unless there's something magical and metaphysical about you that makes the band of visible light we call green appear as red or blue or whatever (protip: there isn't), we're going to need to conclude, and insist, that it's the same green everyone else sees.
>ignoring the concept of "Qualia"
All I've been doing is addressing it. It's nonsense. You have the same rods and cones in your eyes as everyone else and corneas that block UV color perception and so on. So unless there's something magical and metaphysical about you that makes the band of visible light we call green appear as red or blue or whatever (protip: there isn't), we're going to need to conclude, and insist, that it's the same green everyone else sees.
>>47773
We need a definition or else we would confuse the colours every time. A language is needed for understanding or else I would not know if your green is my red.
Common human experience is necessary but not enough. Ultimately you will always need language. If you see a certain kind of experiencing light of a certain wavelength then you make use of physical or mathematical language. I would not know if a certain light of a certain wavelength is for you red or green.
So you are right on an individual level. But you have to stick to common definitions or else I would not know if your green is my green.
example: consider a person who is red green colourblind. Then his green would be red actually. Yet he has to stick to the common definition of red and green or else no one would understand him.
We need a definition or else we would confuse the colours every time. A language is needed for understanding or else I would not know if your green is my red.
Common human experience is necessary but not enough. Ultimately you will always need language. If you see a certain kind of experiencing light of a certain wavelength then you make use of physical or mathematical language. I would not know if a certain light of a certain wavelength is for you red or green.
So you are right on an individual level. But you have to stick to common definitions or else I would not know if your green is my green.
example: consider a person who is red green colourblind. Then his green would be red actually. Yet he has to stick to the common definition of red and green or else no one would understand him.
>>47783
>Common human experience is necessary but not enough.
Yeah, that's part of why men developed science and the ability to actually verify facts of experience. Like we learned that headaches aren't caused by evil spirits, we learned that color perception is caused by biology. The mystery is gone.
>I would not know if a certain light of a certain wavelength is for you red or green.
You would find out, same as other colorblind people do. Then your doctor will tell you what caused it and how to manage your problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Causes
It's not a matter of philosophy.
>Common human experience is necessary but not enough.
Yeah, that's part of why men developed science and the ability to actually verify facts of experience. Like we learned that headaches aren't caused by evil spirits, we learned that color perception is caused by biology. The mystery is gone.
>I would not know if a certain light of a certain wavelength is for you red or green.
You would find out, same as other colorblind people do. Then your doctor will tell you what caused it and how to manage your problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness#Causes
It's not a matter of philosophy.
>>47784
The original question was: How do I know that my color green is the same for you? And my answer to that question was: We don't know, but we can assume it. We can assume it, due to language I would say. Senses and experience are necessary to get the knowledge of colours (I am not doubting that), but the problem is I cannot experience what you have experienced. I don't know how you interprete things. Therefore I suggested that language is the guarantee that your green is the same green as mine.
That is my answer to that question, if you have a different opinion then we can discuss it.
>It's not a matter of philosophy.
If you mean colours and light then you are right, as this would much rather fall into the branch of physics. But the question if you colour green is the same for you and is a matter of philosophy. And for me this is best answered by language philosophy. Because you could have also asked is your idea of good and evil the same as for me, or is your justice my justice, or is your reality my reality, etc. So we use a language that defines a reality we all share and can agree upon.
The original question was: How do I know that my color green is the same for you? And my answer to that question was: We don't know, but we can assume it. We can assume it, due to language I would say. Senses and experience are necessary to get the knowledge of colours (I am not doubting that), but the problem is I cannot experience what you have experienced. I don't know how you interprete things. Therefore I suggested that language is the guarantee that your green is the same green as mine.
That is my answer to that question, if you have a different opinion then we can discuss it.
>It's not a matter of philosophy.
If you mean colours and light then you are right, as this would much rather fall into the branch of physics. But the question if you colour green is the same for you and is a matter of philosophy. And for me this is best answered by language philosophy. Because you could have also asked is your idea of good and evil the same as for me, or is your justice my justice, or is your reality my reality, etc. So we use a language that defines a reality we all share and can agree upon.
File: 1555269754474.jpg (65.9 KB, 480x608, 15:19, 103.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>47786
all we can conclude from your argument is that we are able to measure and refer to wavelengths of light when comparing different people's perceptual experiences. It does not answer the phenomenological question of what a wavelength of light looks like.
It seems to be that the phenomenology of people's experiences are inaccessible and so there is no point trying to answer the question. People are clearly quite capable of referring to the same colour but this is not a question of reference.
all we can conclude from your argument is that we are able to measure and refer to wavelengths of light when comparing different people's perceptual experiences. It does not answer the phenomenological question of what a wavelength of light looks like.
It seems to be that the phenomenology of people's experiences are inaccessible and so there is no point trying to answer the question. People are clearly quite capable of referring to the same colour but this is not a question of reference.
>>47795
Your are right the phenomenology of people's experiences are inaccessible. And yeah you are also right that it is to some extent pointless to try to answer the question. Therefore I suggested that we don't know if your green is my green. We don't know and will never know, but we can assume it. So for me it is an assumption that the green you see is the same green as I see.
However if you do not agree then this is fine for me and maybe you are right. I am merely remarking that language seems to presume that we see the same colour.
Your are right the phenomenology of people's experiences are inaccessible. And yeah you are also right that it is to some extent pointless to try to answer the question. Therefore I suggested that we don't know if your green is my green. We don't know and will never know, but we can assume it. So for me it is an assumption that the green you see is the same green as I see.
However if you do not agree then this is fine for me and maybe you are right. I am merely remarking that language seems to presume that we see the same colour.
File: 1556549855273.jpg (272.71 KB, 1000x1143, 1000:1143, file-20170918-8258-oz7qnm.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>47786
>Therefore I suggested that language is the guarantee that your green is the same green as mine.
this isn't even true linguistically. if you look at studies of colour language, the question is still being debated and researched heavily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction_in_language
>Therefore I suggested that language is the guarantee that your green is the same green as mine.
this isn't even true linguistically. if you look at studies of colour language, the question is still being debated and researched heavily
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_color_naming_debate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%E2%80%93green_distinction_in_language
Do you read the Maverick Philosopher blog? I enjoy it quite a bit. He covers many topics, including popular Wizchan discussion material like antinatalism and asceticism.
>A recovering academician, I taught philosophy at various universities in the USA and abroad before abandoning a tenured position to live the eremitic life of the independent philosopher in the Sonoran desert.
The categories section on the right side of the front page is a good place to start.
https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/
>A recovering academician, I taught philosophy at various universities in the USA and abroad before abandoning a tenured position to live the eremitic life of the independent philosopher in the Sonoran desert.
The categories section on the right side of the front page is a good place to start.
https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/
So as a background to Descartes I was introduced to Phyronianism a rising stance in his time, the most radical brand of skepticism that is even skeptical about skepticism. And when I 1st encountered that, I thought its just a way of being radical and edgy. I doubt everything even doubt.
But actually as I think about it, it makes a lot of sense. It is very rational and good advice. Like Sextus Empiricus, the main advocate for Pyhro in Roman times, he was against all schools of dogmatists. But skepticism itself can become a dogma. Like those who just refuse to believe anything. And then often when you reject the facts in front of you, it opens the door to believe weirdly speculative alternatives as the replacement. So skepticism slides into the worst kind of dogmatism. Leading you worse off than the naive realist who just accepts everything in front of him.
So it seems to me a very rational precaution to be skeptical about your own skepticism. A who watches the watchmen kind of thing. Always playing devil's advocate against yourself, challenging yourself, never letting any belief or stance become a fixed rigid dogma, including skepticism itself.
But actually as I think about it, it makes a lot of sense. It is very rational and good advice. Like Sextus Empiricus, the main advocate for Pyhro in Roman times, he was against all schools of dogmatists. But skepticism itself can become a dogma. Like those who just refuse to believe anything. And then often when you reject the facts in front of you, it opens the door to believe weirdly speculative alternatives as the replacement. So skepticism slides into the worst kind of dogmatism. Leading you worse off than the naive realist who just accepts everything in front of him.
So it seems to me a very rational precaution to be skeptical about your own skepticism. A who watches the watchmen kind of thing. Always playing devil's advocate against yourself, challenging yourself, never letting any belief or stance become a fixed rigid dogma, including skepticism itself.
>>47980
Scepticism, like stoicism and epicureanism had the goal to become bliss. The very reason they were so sceptical was because they thought that dogmatic thought will not lead to happiness, while being sceptical will lead to happiness. The great idol was of course Socrates. The idea of scepticism is if you are not believing in anything you are not so attached to them. So when it turns out that your dogma or your belief system was wrong then you are not unhappy, because you were sceptical in the first place.
So it is not about doubting everything for the sake of doubt. It is only a way how they thought you can become happy.
Scepticism, like stoicism and epicureanism had the goal to become bliss. The very reason they were so sceptical was because they thought that dogmatic thought will not lead to happiness, while being sceptical will lead to happiness. The great idol was of course Socrates. The idea of scepticism is if you are not believing in anything you are not so attached to them. So when it turns out that your dogma or your belief system was wrong then you are not unhappy, because you were sceptical in the first place.
So it is not about doubting everything for the sake of doubt. It is only a way how they thought you can become happy.
>>48012
Well according to this lecture on Descartes, the modern Pyhronists of the 1600s advocated being skeptical about everything including skepticism itself, which always intrigued me. And only lately have I thought of the practical benefits of turning scepticism back on scepticism.
Well according to this lecture on Descartes, the modern Pyhronists of the 1600s advocated being skeptical about everything including skepticism itself, which always intrigued me. And only lately have I thought of the practical benefits of turning scepticism back on scepticism.
Schopenhauer on sexual love
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter10.html
His philosophy is that of Wizardry, and in the last chapter he admires the Shakers.
And I know he personally was a normie, I've brought it up on other threads.
But he himself says hypocrisy is no barrier to the truth of a philosophy, it is like an ugly sculptor carving beauty.
https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter10.html
His philosophy is that of Wizardry, and in the last chapter he admires the Shakers.
And I know he personally was a normie, I've brought it up on other threads.
But he himself says hypocrisy is no barrier to the truth of a philosophy, it is like an ugly sculptor carving beauty.
File: 1557887057483.gif (3.32 MB, 1024x1024, 1:1, 1557876806091.gif) ImgOps iqdb
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sextus-empiricus/
I've been reading about Pyrrhonian Skepticism. And of all the Hellinistic schools of trying to find mental peace, Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism; I would say it is the one I relate most to at the moment. As an intellectual isolated from the world, I need to find peace in my epistemology more than my ethics.
I realize that so much of my misery comes from thinking I do have knowledge and understanding of humans, human nature and behavior. That the dogmas I cling to of what is right and wrong, good and bad have any kind of meaning.
I haven't had daily contact with the same peers since high school 2006. 13 years already. And yet I've let media, books and words on a computer screen shape some kind of reality of humans, and the good and bad of humans. They might as well be characters in a Warcraft game. I could just as well be talking about Orcs and Elves as anything humans.
"I suspend judgment"
"I determine nothing"
are the keys for me in finding mental peace. It is amazing how much I have allowed "humanity" to impact my mental well-being. When by humanity I just mean words I read on a screen, and extrapolate to representing flesh and blood real people I've never seen.
I don't know the facts about humanity. And what also follows is I don't know the ethics, IDK what is right or wrong for this species anymore than I do Orcs.
I've been reading about Pyrrhonian Skepticism. And of all the Hellinistic schools of trying to find mental peace, Cynicism, Stoicism, Epicureanism; I would say it is the one I relate most to at the moment. As an intellectual isolated from the world, I need to find peace in my epistemology more than my ethics.
I realize that so much of my misery comes from thinking I do have knowledge and understanding of humans, human nature and behavior. That the dogmas I cling to of what is right and wrong, good and bad have any kind of meaning.
I haven't had daily contact with the same peers since high school 2006. 13 years already. And yet I've let media, books and words on a computer screen shape some kind of reality of humans, and the good and bad of humans. They might as well be characters in a Warcraft game. I could just as well be talking about Orcs and Elves as anything humans.
"I suspend judgment"
"I determine nothing"
are the keys for me in finding mental peace. It is amazing how much I have allowed "humanity" to impact my mental well-being. When by humanity I just mean words I read on a screen, and extrapolate to representing flesh and blood real people I've never seen.
I don't know the facts about humanity. And what also follows is I don't know the ethics, IDK what is right or wrong for this species anymore than I do Orcs.
>>48254
To sum up
For Marcus peace is found in saying "be not angry at normies, for they know not what they do"
While for Sextus peace is found in saying "I know not"
To sum up
For Marcus peace is found in saying "be not angry at normies, for they know not what they do"
While for Sextus peace is found in saying "I know not"
File: 1560107074357.jpg (46.66 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, hans.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>Free Will vs Determinism
I can roll a spliff, if I want.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
If we didn't agree on something we'd be 'ere forever talking about grass.
>Materialism vs Idealism
A bit of both. I'd ideally like a packet of salt and vinegar crisps.
>Does God exist?
Not believing in God is a bit of a punt innit.
>What is the meaning of life?
Sommit to do with God.
>Are morals culturally relative?
I'll fucking kill yah, howzat for cussing my mum.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Naah, things might get better, if they don't, you'll die anyway.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
We all smile innit?
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
If I told you I was gonna buy you a beer but last orders passed by, you'd still be sound.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
Nobody likes a know it all.
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Don't use a wrench to hammer a nail.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
Sometimes we fuck up.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
Nobody knows what Dave is thinking.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
Enter the cave, fight the dragon, leave with the succubus.
I can roll a spliff, if I want.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
If we didn't agree on something we'd be 'ere forever talking about grass.
>Materialism vs Idealism
A bit of both. I'd ideally like a packet of salt and vinegar crisps.
>Does God exist?
Not believing in God is a bit of a punt innit.
>What is the meaning of life?
Sommit to do with God.
>Are morals culturally relative?
I'll fucking kill yah, howzat for cussing my mum.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
Naah, things might get better, if they don't, you'll die anyway.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
We all smile innit?
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
If I told you I was gonna buy you a beer but last orders passed by, you'd still be sound.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
Nobody likes a know it all.
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
Don't use a wrench to hammer a nail.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
Sometimes we fuck up.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
Nobody knows what Dave is thinking.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
Enter the cave, fight the dragon, leave with the succubus.
File: 1561203686015-0.png (99.71 KB, 500x575, 20:23, what do.png) ImgOps iqdb
Wizzies, I've never thought I'd say this, but where should one start studying philosophy? As in, what books, and in what order should you read to get a decent grasp on both the history of Western philosophy and on various teachings and schools of thought that appeared throughout the years? Another thing, in what way should philosophy be studied? Should I take notes, apply the many principles different philosophers put forward, debate about and discuss the things I read in Internet communities? What if I will find myself biased, positively or negatively, towards what the philosophers write? If I end up reading two philosophers works of which contradict or criticize each other, what should I do in such case? And finally, would it be wrong to use different insights from different philosophers in my life?
>>48487
You can discuss the contradictions with others, but you have to choose for yourself who and what to believe. Philosophy is difficult and huge and confusing at times. Start by reading whatever interests you first, but you should know the classics (like Plato) and the Bible. Most of philosophy is chronological, so just read the oldest to newest. Taking notes helps me when I study, but you have to decide for yourself if you're going to apply any principles.
You can discuss the contradictions with others, but you have to choose for yourself who and what to believe. Philosophy is difficult and huge and confusing at times. Start by reading whatever interests you first, but you should know the classics (like Plato) and the Bible. Most of philosophy is chronological, so just read the oldest to newest. Taking notes helps me when I study, but you have to decide for yourself if you're going to apply any principles.
>>48487
if you're a total 101, I would just skim this for topics you're interested in
https://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
if you're a total 101, I would just skim this for topics you're interested in
https://plato.stanford.edu/published.html
>>48487
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X72ELQFnjYU
This video might be useful, always start with Plato.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X72ELQFnjYU
This video might be useful, always start with Plato.
File: 1576066460674.jpg (156.29 KB, 936x1372, 234:343, william-james_5.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>Keep the faculty of effort alive in you by a little gratuitous exercise every day. That is, be systematically heroic in little unnecessary points, do every day or two something for no other reason than its difficulty, so that, when the hour of dire need draws nigh, it may find you not unnerved and untrained to stand the test. Asceticism of this sort is like the insurance which a man pays on his house and goods. The tax does him no good at the time, and possibly may never bring him a return. But, if the fire does come, his having paid it will be his salvation from ruin. So with the man who has daily inured himself to habits of concentrated attention, energetic volition, and self-denial in unnecessary things. He will stand like a tower when everything rocks around him, and his softer fellow-mortals are winnowed like chaff in the blast.
>We are spinning our own fates, good or evil, and never to be undone. Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice leaves its never-so-little scar. The drunken Rip Van Winkle, in Jefferson's play, excuses himself for every fresh dereliction by saying, "I won't count this time!" Well, he may not count it, and a kind Heaven may not count it; but it is being counted none the less. Down among his nerve-cells and fibres the molecules are counting it, registering and storing it up to be used against him when the next temptation comes.
>We are spinning our own fates, good or evil, and never to be undone. Every smallest stroke of virtue or of vice leaves its never-so-little scar. The drunken Rip Van Winkle, in Jefferson's play, excuses himself for every fresh dereliction by saying, "I won't count this time!" Well, he may not count it, and a kind Heaven may not count it; but it is being counted none the less. Down among his nerve-cells and fibres the molecules are counting it, registering and storing it up to be used against him when the next temptation comes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Cabrera_(philosopher)
This Argentine philosopher never gets mentioned here with the likes of Cioran and Schopenahuer, but he seems pretty interesting in making an anti-life philosophy
This Argentine philosopher never gets mentioned here with the likes of Cioran and Schopenahuer, but he seems pretty interesting in making an anti-life philosophy
>>48487
>Wizzies, I've never thought I'd say this, but where should one start studying philosophy?
Answer this, why do you want to study philosophy?
>As in, what books, and in what order should you read to get a decent grasp on both the history of Western philosophy and on various teachings and schools of thought that appeared throughout the years?
You could read a book on the history of philosophy. Then you could read secondary literature on topics that you are interested it and then continue onto the primary sources.
>Should I take notes, apply the many principles different philosophers put forward, debate about and discuss the things I read in Internet communities?
Take notes if it helps you learn. As for the rest, no, especially debate. There is never any reason to debate. Or at least I am skeptical that you will find honest intelligent people to debate with online.
>What if I will find myself biased, positively or negatively, towards what the philosophers write?
What if you do? Answer your own question.
>If I end up reading two philosophers works of which contradict or criticize each other, what should I do in such case?
Find the truth.
>And finally, would it be wrong to use different insights from different philosophers in my life?
Existentialism is not philosophy (love of wisdom).
>Wizzies, I've never thought I'd say this, but where should one start studying philosophy?
Answer this, why do you want to study philosophy?
>As in, what books, and in what order should you read to get a decent grasp on both the history of Western philosophy and on various teachings and schools of thought that appeared throughout the years?
You could read a book on the history of philosophy. Then you could read secondary literature on topics that you are interested it and then continue onto the primary sources.
>Should I take notes, apply the many principles different philosophers put forward, debate about and discuss the things I read in Internet communities?
Take notes if it helps you learn. As for the rest, no, especially debate. There is never any reason to debate. Or at least I am skeptical that you will find honest intelligent people to debate with online.
>What if I will find myself biased, positively or negatively, towards what the philosophers write?
What if you do? Answer your own question.
>If I end up reading two philosophers works of which contradict or criticize each other, what should I do in such case?
Find the truth.
>And finally, would it be wrong to use different insights from different philosophers in my life?
Existentialism is not philosophy (love of wisdom).
I should've read the thread before asking this question, but how do i enlighten/motivate myself on suicide? Can you recommend any literature, crazy theories, anything at all?
>>48349
>if I want
But your will is also determined by utter forces to itself.
>cave, dragon, leave with the succubus
I'd love to hear some interpolation of such statements into a context of reality.
>if I want
But your will is also determined by utter forces to itself.
>cave, dragon, leave with the succubus
I'd love to hear some interpolation of such statements into a context of reality.
>>52109
>Epicurus/Lucretius
>Stoics (Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictet)
>Camus Myth of Sisyphus
>Heidegger Time and Being
>Schopenhauer
>Mainländer
>Epicurus/Lucretius
>Stoics (Cicero, Seneca, Marcus Aurelius, Epictet)
>Camus Myth of Sisyphus
>Heidegger Time and Being
>Schopenhauer
>Mainländer
>>53844
there's nothing striking there, fucken socio slime level.
even The Selfish Gene is more avoking
there's nothing striking there, fucken socio slime level.
even The Selfish Gene is more avoking
>>52109
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/05/23/the-most-depressing-book-ever-written-death-by-starvation-by-hegesias-of-kyrene/
>Cicero claims that Ptolemy II Philadelphos (ruled 285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt at the time when Hegesias was alive, forbade Hegesias from teaching in Alexandria on account of him having written Death by Starvation. He also maintains that a large number of people who read his book actually killed themselves because the arguments laid out in it were so convincing.
Too bad we won't enjoy his works anymore:
>Hegesias’s book has not survived to the present day, which means it is extremely doubtful that anyone will ever read it again.
https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2017/05/23/the-most-depressing-book-ever-written-death-by-starvation-by-hegesias-of-kyrene/
>Cicero claims that Ptolemy II Philadelphos (ruled 285–246 BC), the ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt at the time when Hegesias was alive, forbade Hegesias from teaching in Alexandria on account of him having written Death by Starvation. He also maintains that a large number of people who read his book actually killed themselves because the arguments laid out in it were so convincing.
Too bad we won't enjoy his works anymore:
>Hegesias’s book has not survived to the present day, which means it is extremely doubtful that anyone will ever read it again.
What do you think of how Kierkegaard turned down his chance at normie happiness with Regine Olsen so that he could be a volcel christian? He wrote the whole book "Diary of a Seducer" so she would just think she was taken advantage of by an evil PUA, and not know the truth that he was a noble wizard.
>John Gray | Progress is a Myth (Video Essay)
A bit of more modern pessimism from John Gray, there's a lot of discussions with John Gray but this is neat and short.
A bit of more modern pessimism from John Gray, there's a lot of discussions with John Gray but this is neat and short.
>>25265
>Sorites paradox
>Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay?
God, some people just have too much free time. Here's your definitoin of a heap: it's pic related. Nobody's ever mistaken a heap for, say, a wasp or vice versa. This definition is enough. Definitions of such things shouldn't go beyond their usefulness in daily life. That's where the discussion should end, all else beyond that point is just pointless semantics.
>Sorites paradox
>Is a bale of hay still a bale of hay if you remove one straw? If so, is it still a bale of hay if you remove another straw? If you continue this way, you will eventually deplete the entire bale of hay, and the question is: at what point is it no longer a bale of hay?
God, some people just have too much free time. Here's your definitoin of a heap: it's pic related. Nobody's ever mistaken a heap for, say, a wasp or vice versa. This definition is enough. Definitions of such things shouldn't go beyond their usefulness in daily life. That's where the discussion should end, all else beyond that point is just pointless semantics.
File: 1593969868486.jpg (4.75 MB, 2600x1683, 2600:1683, heap.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>54138
the pic I forgot about
the pic I forgot about
>>54138
>>54139
It's not about the word or semantics. In this case the bale is just an easy to understand model. The paradox is important for things like data analysis. If you have a set of numbers and some are outliers, how many outliers can you delete before the data set has lost meaning and no longer reflects reality?
>>54139
It's not about the word or semantics. In this case the bale is just an easy to understand model. The paradox is important for things like data analysis. If you have a set of numbers and some are outliers, how many outliers can you delete before the data set has lost meaning and no longer reflects reality?
File: 1594916165972.jpg (709.52 KB, 1364x2048, 341:512, 2917046796_a531caa4bc_k.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>Free Will vs Determinism
Agent Causality.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
You cannot know it.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Monistic idealism.
>Does God exist?
Yes.
>What is the meaning of life?
Theosis.
>Is sexual reproduction immoral?
No.
>Are morals culturally relative?
No.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
No.
>Do categories objectively exist?
Yes.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Yes.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Consequences.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
No.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
-
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
-
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Both.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
Yes.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
You don't.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
The monastic one.
Agent Causality.
>Qualia: How do I know that my color green is the same for you?
You cannot know it.
>Materialism vs Idealism
Monistic idealism.
>Does God exist?
Yes.
>What is the meaning of life?
Theosis.
>Is sexual reproduction immoral?
No.
>Are morals culturally relative?
No.
>Can suicide be rationally justified?
No.
>Do categories objectively exist?
Yes.
>Is there such a thing as universal human nature?
Yes.
>Whats more important consequences or good intentions?
Consequences.
>Are ideas determined by material conditions?
No.
>Empiricism vs Rationalism
-
>Continental vs Analytic Philosophy
-
>Is knowledge socially situated or objective?
Both.
>Is there such a thing as historical progress?
Yes.
>How do I know that other humans have self-consciousness?
You don't.
>What is the well-lived Wizard life?
The monastic one.
>>54335
Objection: suicide is rationally justified if one has reason to believe that the act of suicide would lead to theosis.
Objection: suicide is rationally justified if one has reason to believe that the act of suicide would lead to theosis.
>>54335
Why can't more discussions take this format?
These was incredibly comfy to read and soothed my autism
Why can't more discussions take this format?
These was incredibly comfy to read and soothed my autism
File: 1594955806291.jpg (48.83 KB, 300x528, 25:44, 13-Death.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>54343
Consider suicide as a profound cleansing ritual rather than an act of despair.
People die a bit every day, and they replace that death with new life, which, if you're doing things correctly, should be better than what was killed. Perhaps some may utilize the big death in the same manner.
Consider suicide as a profound cleansing ritual rather than an act of despair.
People die a bit every day, and they replace that death with new life, which, if you're doing things correctly, should be better than what was killed. Perhaps some may utilize the big death in the same manner.
>>54344
The only ritual one needs for death is philosophy/detachment which is preparing to die. Suicide is for the agnostic (those having no gnosis) who identify with the body and think that they can escape becoming and achieve peace by committing suicide but by doing this they only go deeper into the darkness of the archetypal cave instead of escaping out into the presence of the noetic sun.
The only ritual one needs for death is philosophy/detachment which is preparing to die. Suicide is for the agnostic (those having no gnosis) who identify with the body and think that they can escape becoming and achieve peace by committing suicide but by doing this they only go deeper into the darkness of the archetypal cave instead of escaping out into the presence of the noetic sun.
File: 1594963723476.jpg (408.43 KB, 1280x853, 1280:853, Resurrestion Fresco2.large.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>54344
>Consider suicide as a profound cleansing ritual rather than an act of despair.
Death is everything but cleansing.
Death is swallowed up in victory.
>Consider suicide as a profound cleansing ritual rather than an act of despair.
Death is everything but cleansing.
Death is swallowed up in victory.
>>54346
Detatchment is death. They are the same thing, the difference is scale. Some monks are able to will themselves dead, you don't necessarily have to use violence.
Detatchment is death. They are the same thing, the difference is scale. Some monks are able to will themselves dead, you don't necessarily have to use violence.
File: 1595010910977-0.jpg (117.43 KB, 659x1000, 659:1000, 4303b437820b3db0a5782d9acd….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
File: 1595010910977-1.jpg (101.51 KB, 910x519, 910:519, ascension-of-christ-iconog….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
File: 1595010910977-2.jpg (198.51 KB, 1024x682, 512:341, d463fc8ca40290481c6d056678….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>54365
You mean the icons?
You mean the icons?
File: 1595036526799.jpg (69.66 KB, 700x424, 175:106, 63ffdc43260a4a161506b6e441….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>54383
I don't want to ruin this thread, so I won't do it.
But, if you would make a thread about Orthodox Christianity i will post there.
I don't want to ruin this thread, so I won't do it.
But, if you would make a thread about Orthodox Christianity i will post there.
[Last 50 Posts]