File: 1640107786622.png (974.69 KB, 1039x581, 1039:581, biden-anime.png) ImgOps iqdb
Any1 here feels bad about how much time they wasted on philosophy, religions, or generally on seeking the "ultimate truth"? I can't take it seriously anymore. It seems to me like meaningless word-plays, all of it, politics, philosophy, everything. So much shit that doesn't have anything to do with my life, you know what I mean? Should have just read 07th expansion VNs or watched cartoons/movies instead of wasting my time on trying to become an intellectual or wise person.
Philosophy is inherently worthless as knowledge about the true purpose of the world will not chance the properties of the world. That said, developing your own personal philosophy or simply ruminating on it is worthwhile as it can be therapeutic and helps cope with life.
You need to study it to understand that it's bullshit. Otherwise, it is plain to see that most people live their whole lives with fucked up nonsensical beliefs that prevent them from seeing clearly
>>186464
No, correcting my thinking is the only thing that made living bearable. What you describe as meaningless word-plays is freedom to me.
If you are still caught in emotions and reactive, negative thinking then the good news is you can detach from it.
No time is wasted, it happened in the only way it could. You'll be fine, and you can enjoy yourself. No one really cares. Death undoes everything, so don't hold on.
No, correcting my thinking is the only thing that made living bearable. What you describe as meaningless word-plays is freedom to me.
If you are still caught in emotions and reactive, negative thinking then the good news is you can detach from it.
No time is wasted, it happened in the only way it could. You'll be fine, and you can enjoy yourself. No one really cares. Death undoes everything, so don't hold on.
This reminds me of a passage from the first few pages of The Steppenwolf by Hesse. You might enjoy it…
I remember an instance of this in the last days he was here, if I can call a mere fleeting glance he gave me an example of what I mean. It was when a celebrated historian, philosopher, and critic, a man of European fame, had announced a lecture in the school auditorium. I had succeeded in persuading the Steppenwolf to attend it, though at first he had little desire to do so. We went together and sat next to each other in the lecture hall. When the lecturer ascended the platform and began his address, many of his hearers, who had expected a sort of prophet, were disappointed by his rather dapper appearance and conceited air. And when he proceeded, by way
of introduction, to say a few flattering things to the audience, thanking them for their attendance in such numbers, the Steppenwolf threw me a quick look, a look which criticized both the words and the speaker of them—an unforgettable and frightful look which spoke volumes! It was a look that did not simply criticize the lecturer, annihilating the famous man with its delicate but crushing irony. That was the least of it. It was more sad than ironical; it was indeed utterly and hopelessly sad; it conveyed a quiet despair, born partly of conviction, partly of a mode of thought which had become habitual with him. This despair of his not only unmasked the conceited lecturer and dismissed with its irony the matter at hand, the expectant attitude of the public, the somewhat presumptuous title under which the lecture was announced—no, the Steppenwolf's look pierced our whole epoch, its whole overwrought activity, the whole surge and strife, the whole vanity, the whole superficial play of a shallow, opinionated intellectuality. And alas! the look went still deeper, went far below the faults, defects and hopelessness of our time, our intellect, our culture alone. It went right to the heart of all humanity, it bespoke eloquently in a single second the whole despair of a thinker, of one who knew the full worth and meaning of man's life. It said: "See what monkeys we are! Look, such is man!" and at once all renown, all intelligence, all the attainments of the spirit, all progress towards the sublime, the great and the enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick!
I remember an instance of this in the last days he was here, if I can call a mere fleeting glance he gave me an example of what I mean. It was when a celebrated historian, philosopher, and critic, a man of European fame, had announced a lecture in the school auditorium. I had succeeded in persuading the Steppenwolf to attend it, though at first he had little desire to do so. We went together and sat next to each other in the lecture hall. When the lecturer ascended the platform and began his address, many of his hearers, who had expected a sort of prophet, were disappointed by his rather dapper appearance and conceited air. And when he proceeded, by way
of introduction, to say a few flattering things to the audience, thanking them for their attendance in such numbers, the Steppenwolf threw me a quick look, a look which criticized both the words and the speaker of them—an unforgettable and frightful look which spoke volumes! It was a look that did not simply criticize the lecturer, annihilating the famous man with its delicate but crushing irony. That was the least of it. It was more sad than ironical; it was indeed utterly and hopelessly sad; it conveyed a quiet despair, born partly of conviction, partly of a mode of thought which had become habitual with him. This despair of his not only unmasked the conceited lecturer and dismissed with its irony the matter at hand, the expectant attitude of the public, the somewhat presumptuous title under which the lecture was announced—no, the Steppenwolf's look pierced our whole epoch, its whole overwrought activity, the whole surge and strife, the whole vanity, the whole superficial play of a shallow, opinionated intellectuality. And alas! the look went still deeper, went far below the faults, defects and hopelessness of our time, our intellect, our culture alone. It went right to the heart of all humanity, it bespoke eloquently in a single second the whole despair of a thinker, of one who knew the full worth and meaning of man's life. It said: "See what monkeys we are! Look, such is man!" and at once all renown, all intelligence, all the attainments of the spirit, all progress towards the sublime, the great and the enduring in man fell away and became a monkey's trick!
Op here. Even though I feel this way, I can't deny that no matter how much I want to leave the quest for wisdom behind me, I'm unable to do so. Something just drives me more and more, even to the edge of insanity, even to the point of getting stressed over these things.
And the funniest is, even though I wrote that seeking the truth is bullshit, I can't dismiss everything as equally stupid and meaningless. For example, I'm a pessimist, I could never be an optimist, no matter how convincingly someone reasoned for it.
I feel like I should already make up my own philosophy and be done with these matters.
>>186490
I will read it someday, thanks.
And the funniest is, even though I wrote that seeking the truth is bullshit, I can't dismiss everything as equally stupid and meaningless. For example, I'm a pessimist, I could never be an optimist, no matter how convincingly someone reasoned for it.
I feel like I should already make up my own philosophy and be done with these matters.
>>186490
I will read it someday, thanks.
>>186464
Couldn't agree more. Probably worsened my mental health even further. Good thread, OP.
Couldn't agree more. Probably worsened my mental health even further. Good thread, OP.
>>186464
>Should have just read 07th expansion VNs or watched cartoons/movies instead of wasting my time on trying to become an intellectual or wise person.
It's always fucking VNs and cartoons. Why don't you read books on the subject?
>Should have just read 07th expansion VNs or watched cartoons/movies instead of wasting my time on trying to become an intellectual or wise person.
It's always fucking VNs and cartoons. Why don't you read books on the subject?
>>186502
>Why don't you read books on the subject?
Even people who are well read on the subject can come to feel this way; Hesse, for example, who was writing about himself in that quote. It's the same with other subjects too, like psychology, which increasingly reveals itself to be a monkey's trick with its latest inventions.
>>186485
>You need to study it to understand that it's bullshit.
Funny and true, except that sometimes there are rare epiphanies that transform your way of thinking. You have to sift through a lot of muck to find those pearls. It helps if you know what you are looking for. It's worth stating that if you are a nihilist then that is very unfortunate for you! You have to go on a (max difficulty) quest for a cure.
>Why don't you read books on the subject?
Even people who are well read on the subject can come to feel this way; Hesse, for example, who was writing about himself in that quote. It's the same with other subjects too, like psychology, which increasingly reveals itself to be a monkey's trick with its latest inventions.
>>186485
>You need to study it to understand that it's bullshit.
Funny and true, except that sometimes there are rare epiphanies that transform your way of thinking. You have to sift through a lot of muck to find those pearls. It helps if you know what you are looking for. It's worth stating that if you are a nihilist then that is very unfortunate for you! You have to go on a (max difficulty) quest for a cure.
Most of them were penned by bored/depressed/ill rich people, so no wonder they lack truth and substance. They write in the most illegible ways to make themselves seem more intellectual. You can't find the "ultimate truth" by reading. It comes from lived experiences, developing your critical thinking, and a lifetime of cross referencing (if you can even find the versions of earliest texts, they're heavily guarded, and for good reason). Once you gain enough wisdom from these, you can then shift through the endless "knowledge" and learn it's true meaning. Sometimes you may come across people who speak some truth, but it's never the full truth. Either because you don't have enough wisdom to understand it, or they obfuscate the truth on purpose so it only reaches the people who have the required critical thinking.
>>186499
If you discover the right philosophy then it will inform every moment of your life and permeate your life with meaningful action and experience.
Buena suerte
If you discover the right philosophy then it will inform every moment of your life and permeate your life with meaningful action and experience.
Buena suerte
It at least gives you a clarity when you read and study philosophy and you feel nothing. You can silence the confusions and contradictions in your mind over many years and you're confronted with the reality that your mind and body is unfit. The freedoms others got from the endeavour are not for you. It was wasted in terms of achieving anything or making existence bearable. At least now I know wholeheartedly I am only fit for death.
If you want to understand the world and how it works, the novel is a way better medium. Although I don't particularly care for the classics Hugo, Balzac, and Dostoevsky are full of gems about the world. Philosophy ended with Kant and everyone after him can just be put into the circlejerk category.
Nah.
Except i've never read a philosophy book in my life. They're either long winded ways of stating the obvious, or literal nonsense.
Except i've never read a philosophy book in my life. They're either long winded ways of stating the obvious, or literal nonsense.
>>186516
Curious you say this, as I'm currently reading The Man Who Laughs from Hugo. It is pretty meh for the most part but there were some bits and pieces I liked. My problem with the classics, is well, they don't hold up well in my eyes, generally. I mean this book for example could have been awesome 200 or so years ago but nowadays the thrill-factor is much higher in books or other media so it ends up as quite a boring experience. I have this issue usually whenever I read something from before the 20th century.
>>186502
What is your problem with cartoons and VNs? They managed to entertain me better than any greek tragedy or other classics I read for example. For philosophy and intellectual stuff, I find them entertaining too but nowadays can't really see the value in them, besides getting to know the personality of the philosopher himself. I think philosophy is only good for learning about what somebody was like truly, and not for finding any higher purpose.
What do you mean by reading books on the subject? You mean more philosophy? Nah, tempting, but if I want to entertain myself I would rather just refer to those media I mentioned.
>>186510
>Most of them were penned by bored/depressed/ill rich people, so no wonder they lack truth and substance. They write in the most illegible ways to make themselves seem more intellectual.
Yes, you and this guy >>186546 are right, probably. Still, guess I had some fun time with philosophy, but it was the joy of an eager youth ready to discover true wisdom, like in all those books and movies I like.
Curious you say this, as I'm currently reading The Man Who Laughs from Hugo. It is pretty meh for the most part but there were some bits and pieces I liked. My problem with the classics, is well, they don't hold up well in my eyes, generally. I mean this book for example could have been awesome 200 or so years ago but nowadays the thrill-factor is much higher in books or other media so it ends up as quite a boring experience. I have this issue usually whenever I read something from before the 20th century.
>>186502
What is your problem with cartoons and VNs? They managed to entertain me better than any greek tragedy or other classics I read for example. For philosophy and intellectual stuff, I find them entertaining too but nowadays can't really see the value in them, besides getting to know the personality of the philosopher himself. I think philosophy is only good for learning about what somebody was like truly, and not for finding any higher purpose.
What do you mean by reading books on the subject? You mean more philosophy? Nah, tempting, but if I want to entertain myself I would rather just refer to those media I mentioned.
>>186510
>Most of them were penned by bored/depressed/ill rich people, so no wonder they lack truth and substance. They write in the most illegible ways to make themselves seem more intellectual.
Yes, you and this guy >>186546 are right, probably. Still, guess I had some fun time with philosophy, but it was the joy of an eager youth ready to discover true wisdom, like in all those books and movies I like.
>>186582
I think that as far as Hugo goes, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les miserables along with maybe his poetry are his only works worth reading. At the very least, Les miserables only. These days I can't really stand the classics anymore for the reasons you listed since I'm not very patient anymore, but looking back at that book time managed to just fly by. A lot of heavily religious themes as well and the end brought me to tears.
I think that as far as Hugo goes, The Hunchback of Notre Dame and Les miserables along with maybe his poetry are his only works worth reading. At the very least, Les miserables only. These days I can't really stand the classics anymore for the reasons you listed since I'm not very patient anymore, but looking back at that book time managed to just fly by. A lot of heavily religious themes as well and the end brought me to tears.
>>186588
Currently at the part where Gwynplaine gave long speeches to the peers about how they don't know about the sufferings of the common people and it was probably the best moment in the entire book for me, at this point. Unfortunately for Hugo, republicanism didn't really bring with it a golden age for us, the things Gwynplaine described, like in the future there won't be slaves or things along this line, would come only with some kind of anarchistic society.
Currently at the part where Gwynplaine gave long speeches to the peers about how they don't know about the sufferings of the common people and it was probably the best moment in the entire book for me, at this point. Unfortunately for Hugo, republicanism didn't really bring with it a golden age for us, the things Gwynplaine described, like in the future there won't be slaves or things along this line, would come only with some kind of anarchistic society.
>>186464
If you look at philosophy books as just a different form of entertainment then it all makes sense. Hundreds and hundreds of pages just rambling about ideas that could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Things that have no consequence on life and can't be either proven or disproven. Most of those are complete fluff, just there to fill pages like a cheap LN, or even any other fictional novel.
If you look at philosophy books as just a different form of entertainment then it all makes sense. Hundreds and hundreds of pages just rambling about ideas that could be summarized in a couple of paragraphs. Things that have no consequence on life and can't be either proven or disproven. Most of those are complete fluff, just there to fill pages like a cheap LN, or even any other fictional novel.
>>186464
Not entirely. You study it and use pieces of it to come to your own personal understanding of the world/universe (it's different for everyone), and then you just kind of nope out of that shit. Once you've developed your own concrete worldview, reading/listening to people go on about how right they are is really fucking obnoxious. Most religious and philosophical discussions can be pretty succinctly described as "insane levels of projection" and left to rot.
Not entirely. You study it and use pieces of it to come to your own personal understanding of the world/universe (it's different for everyone), and then you just kind of nope out of that shit. Once you've developed your own concrete worldview, reading/listening to people go on about how right they are is really fucking obnoxious. Most religious and philosophical discussions can be pretty succinctly described as "insane levels of projection" and left to rot.
What else is one supposed to do? Observe drawings that continually extoll simple platitudes such as the power of friendship, love and other norman values? Mash buttons to control a computer program in a way that will not force you back to an earlier state of the program? There's only so much of these activities that I could take. If this site truly wishes to "disregard females, acquire magic", then it is fitting that time should be spent comprehending one's powers, the nature of which normals couldn't possibly understand.
>>187222
Nice deconstruction of anime and video games. But it can be done with philosophy too, it is nothing but rich intellectuals pretending they know shit, just because they read the writings of other rich intellectuals who lived before them. At least anime or games are entertaining, even if you disagree with the story or values they portray to you. Just like how this guy said >>187056
>Once you've developed your own concrete worldview, reading/listening to people go on about how right they are is really fucking obnoxious
Nice deconstruction of anime and video games. But it can be done with philosophy too, it is nothing but rich intellectuals pretending they know shit, just because they read the writings of other rich intellectuals who lived before them. At least anime or games are entertaining, even if you disagree with the story or values they portray to you. Just like how this guy said >>187056
>Once you've developed your own concrete worldview, reading/listening to people go on about how right they are is really fucking obnoxious
I spent a great deal of my life reading philosophy. It was all a waste. Now when the itch comes I just think of Diogenes life and stop worrying about these matters of God
File: 1642228470848.png (200.39 KB, 640x480, 4:3, 162911045326.png) ImgOps iqdb
Plato is garbage. All philosophy before Kant is an exercise in exploiting the imprecise nature of language as well as tedious and empty rambling on concepts such as being, essence substance and so on. They all imagined that by investigating the concepts in themselves, by the use of pure reason, would reveal the objective nature of reality, despite the fact that all the schools of philosophy disagreed with each other. They were all using their own "pure reason" to arrive at different conclusions and so revealed that there was no objective knowledge to be gained by this process, only arbitrary personal preference.
For thousands of years the only solution to this impasse was skepticism or spiritual faith. Skepticism is unsatisfactory to most because it is the desire of reason to know, and this thirst cannot be quenched easily, whereas spiritual faith relies on personal feeling and intuition which can appear to be entirely arbitrary to those who do not share the same enthusiasm.
Luckily Kant-Sama broke this deadlock by proving it is impossible to acquire any objective knowledge using pure reason but we can have knowledge of things as they appear to us. The grip of the old method of philosophy was finally broken, and the flowering of new, sophisticated methods and perspectives was now possible. It's just a shame that so many thousands of years were wasted with the old, uncritical method.
For thousands of years the only solution to this impasse was skepticism or spiritual faith. Skepticism is unsatisfactory to most because it is the desire of reason to know, and this thirst cannot be quenched easily, whereas spiritual faith relies on personal feeling and intuition which can appear to be entirely arbitrary to those who do not share the same enthusiasm.
Luckily Kant-Sama broke this deadlock by proving it is impossible to acquire any objective knowledge using pure reason but we can have knowledge of things as they appear to us. The grip of the old method of philosophy was finally broken, and the flowering of new, sophisticated methods and perspectives was now possible. It's just a shame that so many thousands of years were wasted with the old, uncritical method.
File: 1642239537774.jpg (124.31 KB, 704x480, 22:15, 149193394046.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>187266
Why did you repost my post from another website? I'll have you know that when I wrote that I was in thie midst of skeptical despair due to the meddling of insolent normalfags. I now think that the philosophical vocation, even though extremely difficult and sometimes beyond any possible coherence, is in fact the highest calling of mankind and am willing to prostrate myself for the forgiveness of Plato, even though I suspect that his student, Aristotle surpassed the master.
Why did you repost my post from another website? I'll have you know that when I wrote that I was in thie midst of skeptical despair due to the meddling of insolent normalfags. I now think that the philosophical vocation, even though extremely difficult and sometimes beyond any possible coherence, is in fact the highest calling of mankind and am willing to prostrate myself for the forgiveness of Plato, even though I suspect that his student, Aristotle surpassed the master.
>>187810
Nietzsche is incredibly overrated. Anytime anyone mentions him on imageboards I always assume they're still in highschool or a freshman in college. Kierkegaard is really the only one worth noting of that list in that he provides an outlook that the reader can actually apply to real life.
Nietzsche is incredibly overrated. Anytime anyone mentions him on imageboards I always assume they're still in highschool or a freshman in college. Kierkegaard is really the only one worth noting of that list in that he provides an outlook that the reader can actually apply to real life.
>>187822
I agree but I can't help but resonating with Nietszche. The core of Nietszche (to me) is simply life-motivation written in a cool way, + some half-alright metaphysics. Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard are real philos, Nietszche is a poet with some interesting thoughts
I agree but I can't help but resonating with Nietszche. The core of Nietszche (to me) is simply life-motivation written in a cool way, + some half-alright metaphysics. Kant, Hegel and Kierkegaard are real philos, Nietszche is a poet with some interesting thoughts
>>187835
That's actually a great way to put it and I think is more fair. Thinking about him as a poet and philologist who wrote out some of his thoughts allows us to better analyze his writings under the right lens rather than grouping him with other actual philosophers.
That's actually a great way to put it and I think is more fair. Thinking about him as a poet and philologist who wrote out some of his thoughts allows us to better analyze his writings under the right lens rather than grouping him with other actual philosophers.
>>187822
I blame Nietzsche for the mainstream atheism+petty materialism of our age. Actually, I came to dislike philosophy from Kant onward and grew to appreciate classic philosophy more and more.
I blame Nietzsche for the mainstream atheism+petty materialism of our age. Actually, I came to dislike philosophy from Kant onward and grew to appreciate classic philosophy more and more.
>>187843
Nietszche aint very materialist. Honestly it was the enlightenment and scientific breakthrough that killed spirituality, idealism and spawned this god forsaken materialist hellscape.
Nietszche is a reaction to nihilistic materialistic world rather than a part of it.
Nietszche aint very materialist. Honestly it was the enlightenment and scientific breakthrough that killed spirituality, idealism and spawned this god forsaken materialist hellscape.
Nietszche is a reaction to nihilistic materialistic world rather than a part of it.
>>187855
Did we read the same guy? He is one of the most materialistic philosophers ever. Yes, the enlightenment started the whole thing but Nietzsche was the one who spread it the most in my opinion. He even dedicated one of his work to Voltaire, the father of enlightenment and he continually praised science. Nietzsche was as much of a materialist as one can get. He was against nihilism but he was no way for spiritualism or asceticism of any kind.
Did we read the same guy? He is one of the most materialistic philosophers ever. Yes, the enlightenment started the whole thing but Nietzsche was the one who spread it the most in my opinion. He even dedicated one of his work to Voltaire, the father of enlightenment and he continually praised science. Nietzsche was as much of a materialist as one can get. He was against nihilism but he was no way for spiritualism or asceticism of any kind.
>>187861
>Nietzsche was as much of a materialist as one can get.
There's debate whether Nietzsche's view of will is synonymous with material reality or not.
>Is it not permitted to make the experiment and ask the question whether this which is 'given' (our world of passions) does not suffice for an understanding even of the so-called material world? I do not mean as a deception or appearance, in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhaueran sense, but as possessing the same degree of reality as our passions themselves.
>The question is whether we believe in the causality of will: if we do so - and fundamentally belief in this is precisely our belief in causality itself - then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of will hypothetically as the only one.
>Will can only operate on will, and not on matter. One must venture the hypothesis that wherever effects are recognized, will is operating on will, and that all mechanical occurrences, insofar as a force is active in them, are force of will.
>The world seen from within, the world described and defined according to its 'intelligible character' - it would be 'will to power' and nothing else.
BGE §36
>He was against nihilism but he was no way for spiritualism or asceticism of any kind.
The last essay in Genealogy deals with asceticism. Nietzsche isn't opposed to asceticism, he views it as life trying to master life itself. What he would scorn is ascesis becoming nausea.
>These philosophers, you see, are by no means uncorrupted witnesses and judges of the value of the ascetic ideal. They think of themselves - what is the "saint" to them? They think of that which to them personally is most indispensable; of freedom from compulsion, disturbance, noise: freedom from business, duties, cares; of clear head; of the dance, spring, and flight of thoughts; of good air - rare, clear, free, dry, as is the air on the heights, in which every animal creature becomes more intellectual and gains wings; they think of peace in every cellar; all the hounds neatly chained; no baying of enmity and uncouth rancour; no remorse of wounded ambition; quiet and submissive internal organs, busy as mills, but unnoticed; the heart alien, transcendent, future, posthumous - to summarise, they mean by the ascetic ideal the joyous asceticism of a deified and newly fledged animal, sweeping over life rather than resting.
>We know what are the three great catch-words of the ascetic ideal: poverty, humility, chastity; and now just look closely at the life of all the great fruitful inventive spirits - you will always find again and again these three qualities up to a certain extent. Not for a minute, as is self-evident, as though, perchance, they were part of their virtues - what has this type of man to do with virtues? - but as the most essential and natural conditions of their best existence, their finest fruitfulness.
>In this connection it is quite possible that their predominant intellectualism had first to curb an unruly and irritable pride, or an insolent sensualism, or that it had all its work cut out to maintain its wish for the "desert" against perhaps an inclination to luxury and dilettantism, or similarly against an extravagant liberality of heart and hand. But their intellect did effect all this, simply because it was the dominant instinct, which carried through its orders in the case of all the other instincts. It effects it still; if it ceased to do so, it would simply not be dominant. But there is not one iota of "virtue" in all this. Further, the desert, of which I just spoke, in which the strong, independent, and well-equipped spirits retreat into their hermitage - oh, how different is it from the cultured classes' dream of a desert! In certain cases, in fact, the cultured classes themselves are the desert. And it is certain that all the actors of the intellect would not endure this desert for a minute.
>A certain asceticism, a grimly gay whole-hearted renunciation, is, as we have seen, one of the most favorable conditions for the highest intellectualism, and, consequently, for the most natural corollaries of such intellectualism: we shall therefore be proof against any surprise at the philosophers in particular always treating the ascetic ideal with a certain amount of predilection. A serious historical investigation shows the bond between the ascetic ideal and philosophy to be still much tighter and still much stronger.
>Such a self-contradiction, as apparently manifests itself among the ascetics, "Life turned against Life," is - this much is absolutely obvious - from the physiological and not now from the psychological standpoint, simply nonsense. It can only be an apparent contradiction; it must be a kind of provisional expression, an explanation, a formula, an adjustment, a psychological misunderstanding of something, whose real nature could not be understood for a long time, and whose real essence could not be described; a mere word jammed into an old gap of human knowledge. To put briefly the facts against its being real: the ascetic ideal springs from the prophylactic and self-preservative instincts which mark a decadent life, which seeks by every means in its power to maintain its position and fight for its existence; it points to a partial physiological depression and exhaustion, against which the most profound and intact life-instincts fight ceaselessly with new weapons and discoveries. The ascetic ideal is such a weapon: its position is consequently exactly the reverse of that which the worshippers of the ideal imagine - life struggles in it and through it with death and against death; the ascetic ideal is a stratagem for the preservation of life.
GM3 §8-13
>Nietzsche was as much of a materialist as one can get.
There's debate whether Nietzsche's view of will is synonymous with material reality or not.
>Is it not permitted to make the experiment and ask the question whether this which is 'given' (our world of passions) does not suffice for an understanding even of the so-called material world? I do not mean as a deception or appearance, in the Berkeleyan and Schopenhaueran sense, but as possessing the same degree of reality as our passions themselves.
>The question is whether we believe in the causality of will: if we do so - and fundamentally belief in this is precisely our belief in causality itself - then we have to make the experiment of positing causality of will hypothetically as the only one.
>Will can only operate on will, and not on matter. One must venture the hypothesis that wherever effects are recognized, will is operating on will, and that all mechanical occurrences, insofar as a force is active in them, are force of will.
>The world seen from within, the world described and defined according to its 'intelligible character' - it would be 'will to power' and nothing else.
BGE §36
>He was against nihilism but he was no way for spiritualism or asceticism of any kind.
The last essay in Genealogy deals with asceticism. Nietzsche isn't opposed to asceticism, he views it as life trying to master life itself. What he would scorn is ascesis becoming nausea.
>These philosophers, you see, are by no means uncorrupted witnesses and judges of the value of the ascetic ideal. They think of themselves - what is the "saint" to them? They think of that which to them personally is most indispensable; of freedom from compulsion, disturbance, noise: freedom from business, duties, cares; of clear head; of the dance, spring, and flight of thoughts; of good air - rare, clear, free, dry, as is the air on the heights, in which every animal creature becomes more intellectual and gains wings; they think of peace in every cellar; all the hounds neatly chained; no baying of enmity and uncouth rancour; no remorse of wounded ambition; quiet and submissive internal organs, busy as mills, but unnoticed; the heart alien, transcendent, future, posthumous - to summarise, they mean by the ascetic ideal the joyous asceticism of a deified and newly fledged animal, sweeping over life rather than resting.
>We know what are the three great catch-words of the ascetic ideal: poverty, humility, chastity; and now just look closely at the life of all the great fruitful inventive spirits - you will always find again and again these three qualities up to a certain extent. Not for a minute, as is self-evident, as though, perchance, they were part of their virtues - what has this type of man to do with virtues? - but as the most essential and natural conditions of their best existence, their finest fruitfulness.
>In this connection it is quite possible that their predominant intellectualism had first to curb an unruly and irritable pride, or an insolent sensualism, or that it had all its work cut out to maintain its wish for the "desert" against perhaps an inclination to luxury and dilettantism, or similarly against an extravagant liberality of heart and hand. But their intellect did effect all this, simply because it was the dominant instinct, which carried through its orders in the case of all the other instincts. It effects it still; if it ceased to do so, it would simply not be dominant. But there is not one iota of "virtue" in all this. Further, the desert, of which I just spoke, in which the strong, independent, and well-equipped spirits retreat into their hermitage - oh, how different is it from the cultured classes' dream of a desert! In certain cases, in fact, the cultured classes themselves are the desert. And it is certain that all the actors of the intellect would not endure this desert for a minute.
>A certain asceticism, a grimly gay whole-hearted renunciation, is, as we have seen, one of the most favorable conditions for the highest intellectualism, and, consequently, for the most natural corollaries of such intellectualism: we shall therefore be proof against any surprise at the philosophers in particular always treating the ascetic ideal with a certain amount of predilection. A serious historical investigation shows the bond between the ascetic ideal and philosophy to be still much tighter and still much stronger.
>Such a self-contradiction, as apparently manifests itself among the ascetics, "Life turned against Life," is - this much is absolutely obvious - from the physiological and not now from the psychological standpoint, simply nonsense. It can only be an apparent contradiction; it must be a kind of provisional expression, an explanation, a formula, an adjustment, a psychological misunderstanding of something, whose real nature could not be understood for a long time, and whose real essence could not be described; a mere word jammed into an old gap of human knowledge. To put briefly the facts against its being real: the ascetic ideal springs from the prophylactic and self-preservative instincts which mark a decadent life, which seeks by every means in its power to maintain its position and fight for its existence; it points to a partial physiological depression and exhaustion, against which the most profound and intact life-instincts fight ceaselessly with new weapons and discoveries. The ascetic ideal is such a weapon: its position is consequently exactly the reverse of that which the worshippers of the ideal imagine - life struggles in it and through it with death and against death; the ascetic ideal is a stratagem for the preservation of life.
GM3 §8-13
>>187861
Like other anon said, I think Nietszche is being more focused on the individual, mental level instead of the real-life appliance of will to power. Just look at Zarathustra, not a warlord or great conqueror but a hermit. The Overman is a goal and a mindset, not a biological super race.
Also, I think cultural relativism and such is not very materialistic, as it directly denounces good/evil dichotomies and embraces a more fluid view on morals and such
Like other anon said, I think Nietszche is being more focused on the individual, mental level instead of the real-life appliance of will to power. Just look at Zarathustra, not a warlord or great conqueror but a hermit. The Overman is a goal and a mindset, not a biological super race.
Also, I think cultural relativism and such is not very materialistic, as it directly denounces good/evil dichotomies and embraces a more fluid view on morals and such
File: 1643898579951.jpg (1.04 MB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1587182381064.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>187881
>Like other anon said, I think Nietszche is being more focused on the individual, mental level instead of the real-life appliance of will to power. Just look at Zarathustra, not a warlord or great conqueror but a hermit. The Overman is a goal and a mindset, not a biological super race.
For Nietzsche at the time ending the idea that man was a terminus, an already perfected being, was his aim. Man is just a transitory animal between two points. Like Zarathustra says: he compares the greatest and smallest men, and finds them all too similar. All too human.
In Antichrist the Laws of Manu are described as valuable because they render unconscious a way of living that had been fought for over generations. Similarly, genes have the effect of rendering unconscious what previous generations of the organism fought for. I think Nietzsche imagined life-affirmative values would become embedded in biology to make a more vital, creative, joyous way of life instinctual. Zarathustra also says: the distance between overman and man is greater than the distance between man and ape. We don't know what the overman will be like, but he will be an apex animal in the domain of values.
>Like other anon said, I think Nietszche is being more focused on the individual, mental level instead of the real-life appliance of will to power. Just look at Zarathustra, not a warlord or great conqueror but a hermit. The Overman is a goal and a mindset, not a biological super race.
For Nietzsche at the time ending the idea that man was a terminus, an already perfected being, was his aim. Man is just a transitory animal between two points. Like Zarathustra says: he compares the greatest and smallest men, and finds them all too similar. All too human.
In Antichrist the Laws of Manu are described as valuable because they render unconscious a way of living that had been fought for over generations. Similarly, genes have the effect of rendering unconscious what previous generations of the organism fought for. I think Nietzsche imagined life-affirmative values would become embedded in biology to make a more vital, creative, joyous way of life instinctual. Zarathustra also says: the distance between overman and man is greater than the distance between man and ape. We don't know what the overman will be like, but he will be an apex animal in the domain of values.
>>187893
>the distance between overman and man is greater than the distance between man and ape.
You don't think he was being metaphorical in that statement? I took it to mean not that the overman is almost impossible to achieve, that he is the goal that we cannot even imagine how to arrive at that drives us to be greater than we imagined we could
>the distance between overman and man is greater than the distance between man and ape.
You don't think he was being metaphorical in that statement? I took it to mean not that the overman is almost impossible to achieve, that he is the goal that we cannot even imagine how to arrive at that drives us to be greater than we imagined we could
>>187893
Why is this actually depressing for me and not life affirming
If the future humans are going to be that amazing that we're going to appear as apes to them, isn't that demotivating lmao
Why is this actually depressing for me and not life affirming
If the future humans are going to be that amazing that we're going to appear as apes to them, isn't that demotivating lmao
>>186489
yeah just stop being negative bro
why didn't I think of that?
you dumb, pseudointellectual tosser why don't you fuck off
yeah just stop being negative bro
why didn't I think of that?
you dumb, pseudointellectual tosser why don't you fuck off
>>186464
Just don't bother. Seriously. I would have been better off never getting into philosophy unless it was Epicureanism and nothing tainted with Plato, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, you name it.
Just don't bother. Seriously. I would have been better off never getting into philosophy unless it was Epicureanism and nothing tainted with Plato, Hegel, Kant, Nietzsche, you name it.
File: 1652802166028.jpg (26.28 KB, 367x500, 367:500, nothingpersonel.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>186464
I've wasted a lot of time with religion. I spent years delving into mostly Eastern traditions. Reading all sorts of suttas and texts, academic essays, meditation manuals, engaging in countless discussions on forums, constantly doing research, etc. Also doing practices like mantra recitation, various forms of meditation, yoga,qi gong, etc.
I literally must have spent hours a day, for a period of several years doing this sort of stuff. I even attended a local Buddhist temple for a while, and did a meditation retreat in Thailand once for two weeks. In hindsight I consider it an utter waste of time, and I feel embarrassed that I was even temporarily hoodwinked into taking any of it seriously.
The deeper I got into, the more I found out and learned about all these traditions, the more cynical and skeptical I became, to the point where I would now consider myself to be a full on fedora tipper.
At one point in time I was absolutely convinced these traditions were part of some Universal Truth™ and that this was the ultimate path to take, then my skepticism grew but I still believed these things held some value, now I believe all religions are truly retarded containing zero value whatsoever, and people who adhere to organized religion are even more retarded. That's something you would expect to hear from a 14 year old, but here you have it from somebody that was deeply involved in it for several years.
My advice to everyone would be to not waste your time with this type of nonsense; you won't find what you're looking for. It's just an another distraction for you to indulge and waste time with. If anything do the exact opposite, strip yourself of all this conceptual baggage. Go do something practical instead, something that will tangibly improve your life.
I've wasted a lot of time with religion. I spent years delving into mostly Eastern traditions. Reading all sorts of suttas and texts, academic essays, meditation manuals, engaging in countless discussions on forums, constantly doing research, etc. Also doing practices like mantra recitation, various forms of meditation, yoga,qi gong, etc.
I literally must have spent hours a day, for a period of several years doing this sort of stuff. I even attended a local Buddhist temple for a while, and did a meditation retreat in Thailand once for two weeks. In hindsight I consider it an utter waste of time, and I feel embarrassed that I was even temporarily hoodwinked into taking any of it seriously.
The deeper I got into, the more I found out and learned about all these traditions, the more cynical and skeptical I became, to the point where I would now consider myself to be a full on fedora tipper.
At one point in time I was absolutely convinced these traditions were part of some Universal Truth™ and that this was the ultimate path to take, then my skepticism grew but I still believed these things held some value, now I believe all religions are truly retarded containing zero value whatsoever, and people who adhere to organized religion are even more retarded. That's something you would expect to hear from a 14 year old, but here you have it from somebody that was deeply involved in it for several years.
My advice to everyone would be to not waste your time with this type of nonsense; you won't find what you're looking for. It's just an another distraction for you to indulge and waste time with. If anything do the exact opposite, strip yourself of all this conceptual baggage. Go do something practical instead, something that will tangibly improve your life.
>>190929
I've also found this to be the case just these last weeks. Mysticism doesn't have any practical use, not even mental comfort. Best to do it away altogether
I've also found this to be the case just these last weeks. Mysticism doesn't have any practical use, not even mental comfort. Best to do it away altogether
>>190929
>>190931
I had thoughts like this too lots of time, in fact I'm the op of this thread too.
But now I think maybe there should be or there is something more to things than being practical or useful. Maybe the point of seeking knowledge and wisdom in this realm is simply to prepare for another kind of existence after death.
>>190927
I think like you too lots of times but I always come back to philosophy and its ramblings. I'm an addict now it seems. But I don't read everything nowadays, only what manages to keep my interest.
>>190931
I had thoughts like this too lots of time, in fact I'm the op of this thread too.
But now I think maybe there should be or there is something more to things than being practical or useful. Maybe the point of seeking knowledge and wisdom in this realm is simply to prepare for another kind of existence after death.
>>190927
I think like you too lots of times but I always come back to philosophy and its ramblings. I'm an addict now it seems. But I don't read everything nowadays, only what manages to keep my interest.
>>186464
>>190932
>>190931
>>190929
Went through similar phases, the lesson I took from it was that I didn't really liked Philosophy. I just enjoyed learning and the feeling of wonder it gave me reading and discovering new stuff.
Right now I'm trying to learn Japanese because watching anime with English subs feels unproductive, not practical and therefore, depressing (as a NEET).
Watching it with JP subs and looking up words reignites that sense of wonder I felt as a teen when I first discovered it. It helps me take my mind off of things and not take life so seriously and feeling productive at the same thing.
Similar to someone going fishing for fun and food.
>>190932
>>190931
>>190929
Went through similar phases, the lesson I took from it was that I didn't really liked Philosophy. I just enjoyed learning and the feeling of wonder it gave me reading and discovering new stuff.
Right now I'm trying to learn Japanese because watching anime with English subs feels unproductive, not practical and therefore, depressing (as a NEET).
Watching it with JP subs and looking up words reignites that sense of wonder I felt as a teen when I first discovered it. It helps me take my mind off of things and not take life so seriously and feeling productive at the same thing.
Similar to someone going fishing for fun and food.
>>190932
Solution - Do you know that Belinda Carlisle song Heaven is a Place on Earth? Romanticize reality. A clear example of this is nostalgia which seems to be have almost objective value due to time. Make reality a hyperbole. I guess Nietzsche had something to say about that but the guy just kind of caught an STD after a bachelor party and that was it, but I think you get my point.
Just avoid mysticism altogether and anything unrelated to this world, it subverts the mind to unreachable ideals. Those ideals Plato just kind of imagined about and plastered on text are objective moral values in most religions.
>>190935
You have the right idea fellow wiz.
Solution - Do you know that Belinda Carlisle song Heaven is a Place on Earth? Romanticize reality. A clear example of this is nostalgia which seems to be have almost objective value due to time. Make reality a hyperbole. I guess Nietzsche had something to say about that but the guy just kind of caught an STD after a bachelor party and that was it, but I think you get my point.
Just avoid mysticism altogether and anything unrelated to this world, it subverts the mind to unreachable ideals. Those ideals Plato just kind of imagined about and plastered on text are objective moral values in most religions.
>>190935
You have the right idea fellow wiz.
>>190935
The lesson for me was there are lots of useless topics and stuff in philosophy that bore me to tears but it is worth picking out the parts that interest me and studying them.
It is like reading the ramblings of a deranged man. You can always find some wisdom in it but it takes patience and time to set apart the precious parts from the gibberish.
>>190938
I understand where you come from but I disagree, for now anyways. From my experience the problem with normals is exactly that they romanticize reality and this world and their life. Normals like to accuse people like us of "escapism" but I found normals to be much more deluded than people here, to tell the truth. Both men and succubi rely on half-truths and lies to make life bearable for them. Like "my boyfriend never cheated on me, that's not possible" or "my life is pretty much okay and great and I enjoy it" and etc.
I take much pride in my sober thinking. It is funny how I am more realistic and down-to-earth even though I read fiction after fiction and spend most of my time experiencing imaginary worlds through media than most normal people are.
I don't have any problem with unreachable ideals, I don't obsess over them. I contemplate them and such but don't try to surpass reality itself. I try to make up my own ideals and it is an interesting journey. Finding the correct path for myself is fun. I don't believe in objective moral values, my concern is about building up my inner, my very own system.
The lesson for me was there are lots of useless topics and stuff in philosophy that bore me to tears but it is worth picking out the parts that interest me and studying them.
It is like reading the ramblings of a deranged man. You can always find some wisdom in it but it takes patience and time to set apart the precious parts from the gibberish.
>>190938
I understand where you come from but I disagree, for now anyways. From my experience the problem with normals is exactly that they romanticize reality and this world and their life. Normals like to accuse people like us of "escapism" but I found normals to be much more deluded than people here, to tell the truth. Both men and succubi rely on half-truths and lies to make life bearable for them. Like "my boyfriend never cheated on me, that's not possible" or "my life is pretty much okay and great and I enjoy it" and etc.
I take much pride in my sober thinking. It is funny how I am more realistic and down-to-earth even though I read fiction after fiction and spend most of my time experiencing imaginary worlds through media than most normal people are.
I don't have any problem with unreachable ideals, I don't obsess over them. I contemplate them and such but don't try to surpass reality itself. I try to make up my own ideals and it is an interesting journey. Finding the correct path for myself is fun. I don't believe in objective moral values, my concern is about building up my inner, my very own system.
File: 1652902434315.jpg (56.16 KB, 460x456, 115:114, amP42nj_460s.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>190953
>my concern is about building up my inner, my very own system.
I resonate quite a bit with this
Also, great point, cause normals do romanticize this life but I believe they do it mindlessly. If everything is pretty much relative for them value for any given thing tends to be assigned by others to them and they'll take it as such, without first determining if it's in any way related to their happiness according to their values.
Fashion, consuming, internet trends and even self-destructive behavioral aesthetics (I'm depressed uwu) seem to be a bit of a proof to me of this. And they'll go on taking life with a set of ideals handed to "them" to wear as "their" accessory making it "their own" image without even having ever fully defined who they are as individuals.
Most people seem to not have a problem with this, somehow
>my concern is about building up my inner, my very own system.
I resonate quite a bit with this
Also, great point, cause normals do romanticize this life but I believe they do it mindlessly. If everything is pretty much relative for them value for any given thing tends to be assigned by others to them and they'll take it as such, without first determining if it's in any way related to their happiness according to their values.
Fashion, consuming, internet trends and even self-destructive behavioral aesthetics (I'm depressed uwu) seem to be a bit of a proof to me of this. And they'll go on taking life with a set of ideals handed to "them" to wear as "their" accessory making it "their own" image without even having ever fully defined who they are as individuals.
Most people seem to not have a problem with this, somehow
>>190954
That is because they are literal cattle and npcs who don't deserve any freedom at all. Also, because of this they never had to question anything in their entire life and never had to think about anything serious. They never had any actual life-shaking events happen to them beside "my gf cheated on me :(" and "daddy died today". Most of them don't even know what planet they live on.
Because others thought instead of them and told them what to do throughout their whole life. They could afford to be weak and simple minded because our society encourages everyone to be a harmless, weak slave who can't make decisions for himself. That way the individual will always depend on the system and the elite for guidance and protection.
This is the result and price of living in society and civilization, that people become dumb, weak and dependent. Not to mention unoriginal and people without actual personalities. This is all the result of community oriented and collectivist thinking so praised and desired by normals always.
It got so bad that you can't even debate with them because their dogmas are so brainwashed into them that they will instantly think you are just bullying them.
That is because they are literal cattle and npcs who don't deserve any freedom at all. Also, because of this they never had to question anything in their entire life and never had to think about anything serious. They never had any actual life-shaking events happen to them beside "my gf cheated on me :(" and "daddy died today". Most of them don't even know what planet they live on.
Because others thought instead of them and told them what to do throughout their whole life. They could afford to be weak and simple minded because our society encourages everyone to be a harmless, weak slave who can't make decisions for himself. That way the individual will always depend on the system and the elite for guidance and protection.
This is the result and price of living in society and civilization, that people become dumb, weak and dependent. Not to mention unoriginal and people without actual personalities. This is all the result of community oriented and collectivist thinking so praised and desired by normals always.
It got so bad that you can't even debate with them because their dogmas are so brainwashed into them that they will instantly think you are just bullying them.
Philosophers, intellectuals, esoterics/occultists, "truth seekers", almost always exclusively rich bastards with old money and too much time on their hands.
Why search for objective truth that you will never find? And even if you did, what would you do with it? Its all for nought, this life. There is nothing to find, nothing to understand. It is a cold hard genetic lottery. If you have a reasonable IQ and self-awareness, you will probably be miserable as hell your entire life as most of the philosophers and intellectuals whom you chase for answers were. Its just brain chemistry. 95 IQ normals don't give a shit about truth or meaning and they are way happier than you will ever be.
Why search for objective truth that you will never find? And even if you did, what would you do with it? Its all for nought, this life. There is nothing to find, nothing to understand. It is a cold hard genetic lottery. If you have a reasonable IQ and self-awareness, you will probably be miserable as hell your entire life as most of the philosophers and intellectuals whom you chase for answers were. Its just brain chemistry. 95 IQ normals don't give a shit about truth or meaning and they are way happier than you will ever be.
File: 1653147719824.pdf (410.3 KB, bam pervert.pdf)
>>191030
There is more to wisdom and knowledge than just practical use. Being happy in the normalfag sense of the word is retarded anyway.
There is more to wisdom and knowledge than just practical use. Being happy in the normalfag sense of the word is retarded anyway.
>I can't take it seriously anymore. It seems to me like meaningless word-plays, all of it, politics, philosophy, everything.
That's becauze they all are. Seriously, it's all word games that we weave to entertain ourselves and, ironically, distract our monkey brains from actually experiencing reality.
Everybody knows words can do no justice to reality.
Also religion is politics. Every religious work is always circumscribed by political concerns, and a politically oriented model of reality.
That's becauze they all are. Seriously, it's all word games that we weave to entertain ourselves and, ironically, distract our monkey brains from actually experiencing reality.
Everybody knows words can do no justice to reality.
Also religion is politics. Every religious work is always circumscribed by political concerns, and a politically oriented model of reality.
I don't. I don't give a shit about videogames. Then again, I don't read bullshit philosophy and religion, I try to get good at multiple fronts that have some actual content grounded in reality. I study math, history, programming, game theory. I'm constantly trying to find "theories of everything". I don't study ancient philosophers except for History and the rare particularly well made relevant points, like Machiavelli, Thucydides, Plato. I also don't study phyeics - it's interesting to know about the strange nature of reality like how space time works, quantum entanglement, and other things, but these are small effects and they don't explain the world we see with our eyes. It's a neverending but addictive search.
File: 1653631830854.jpeg (597.78 KB, 1000x1000, 1:1, 8BA9E585-9EDD-48DB-BFBA-9….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb
I sought a book that would act as a sort of revelation to me, something that would reveal a way of thinking that would change me drastically. I spent so many years reading philosophy and theology and it effectively made my mental state worse, reading Schopenhauer for example will just make you want to die more, the ultimate truth is simple, there is no answer and life suffering. I found reading autobiographies about people who have improved their lives to be far better, a real story of a real person who overcame things you may be going through. Try out “can’t hurt me” by Goggins, after reading that book my retarded life got a little less retarded.
>>191192
Schopenhaur was a hypocrite faker though. Nothing he wrote has any weight or value in my eyes as he didn't even try to live according to his ideals.
So people are just better off dropping him for his superior spiritual student, Herr Nietzsche.
I can relate to this
>I sought a book that would act as a sort of revelation to me, something that would reveal a way of thinking that would change me drastically
But then I realized the answer is really simple in a dumb way: do what you want. There is nothing more that needs to be said. What you think has value…has value. And what you think lacks any values…doesn't have any value. It is baby-tier thinking but this tell us something: that we needed philosophers and long, long chains of reasoning until we reached this childishly simple truth, that everyone is his own god. It tells us most of philosophy wasn't about the truth but something else. Probably self-delusion or downright making people into stupid sheep.
Schopenhaur was a hypocrite faker though. Nothing he wrote has any weight or value in my eyes as he didn't even try to live according to his ideals.
So people are just better off dropping him for his superior spiritual student, Herr Nietzsche.
I can relate to this
>I sought a book that would act as a sort of revelation to me, something that would reveal a way of thinking that would change me drastically
But then I realized the answer is really simple in a dumb way: do what you want. There is nothing more that needs to be said. What you think has value…has value. And what you think lacks any values…doesn't have any value. It is baby-tier thinking but this tell us something: that we needed philosophers and long, long chains of reasoning until we reached this childishly simple truth, that everyone is his own god. It tells us most of philosophy wasn't about the truth but something else. Probably self-delusion or downright making people into stupid sheep.
>>191205
Schop says people are slaves to the will, and he was a slave to the will. the only people who can overcome it are ascetic monks. he admired monks, but never claimed to be one.
although im reminded of how he made fun of stoics for their own hypocrisy, how in contrast to the cynics, they could gorge themselves at the feast and just tell themselves "i could stop if i chose to"
cynics defy being normie, stoics live the normie life, but in their heads say "i can stop if i want"
Schop says people are slaves to the will, and he was a slave to the will. the only people who can overcome it are ascetic monks. he admired monks, but never claimed to be one.
although im reminded of how he made fun of stoics for their own hypocrisy, how in contrast to the cynics, they could gorge themselves at the feast and just tell themselves "i could stop if i chose to"
cynics defy being normie, stoics live the normie life, but in their heads say "i can stop if i want"
>>191210
that's such a weird boiling down of stoicism. i like to think of them as indifferent and strong, able to weather bad and good events without being disturbed
and cynicism i think of similarly, just people training their own bodies and minds to be strong and virtuous by relying on as little other things as possible to survive
cynics are more comparable to ascetics, but stoics are still cool. to call them normans is just baffling, i wish normalfags lived life like that
that's such a weird boiling down of stoicism. i like to think of them as indifferent and strong, able to weather bad and good events without being disturbed
and cynicism i think of similarly, just people training their own bodies and minds to be strong and virtuous by relying on as little other things as possible to survive
cynics are more comparable to ascetics, but stoics are still cool. to call them normans is just baffling, i wish normalfags lived life like that
>>191211
a lot of today's pop stoicism today is exactly that. in your mind you don't need those million dollars, you can be a hobo. but that tough mindset will get you that million dollars.
a lot of today's pop stoicism today is exactly that. in your mind you don't need those million dollars, you can be a hobo. but that tough mindset will get you that million dollars.
>>191213
that's not fair to judge an ancient philosophy by pop culture cooption. for most of history it was NOT that
that's not fair to judge an ancient philosophy by pop culture cooption. for most of history it was NOT that
>>191210
If someone doesn't even TRY to live according to his ideal then why should I take him seriously? Schops praised asceticism but lived the high society life and had fun with wymen and all, how was he different from a hedonist? Come on, he could have tried at least.
>>191211
>>191213
>>191224
>genuine, honest
>stoic
Choose one. It's not just today's pop stoicism. Mostly stoicism was just about rich guys pretending they cared about virtue and calming their own souls. The life of epicureans and stoics weren't that different. It's not hard to be calm and indifferent when you are an aristocrat.
If someone doesn't even TRY to live according to his ideal then why should I take him seriously? Schops praised asceticism but lived the high society life and had fun with wymen and all, how was he different from a hedonist? Come on, he could have tried at least.
>>191211
>>191213
>>191224
>genuine, honest
>stoic
Choose one. It's not just today's pop stoicism. Mostly stoicism was just about rich guys pretending they cared about virtue and calming their own souls. The life of epicureans and stoics weren't that different. It's not hard to be calm and indifferent when you are an aristocrat.
to me seeking truth is the only thing that is worth it anymore. get deeper and deeper into the rabbit hole only to find myself in a greater mess. now i am so incredibly fucking deep in obscure race science/political philosophy that i start to see the mess unfold. if you want a real introduction into the world look into these two things:
https://the-boomer-tribune.medium.com/hbd-jump-starter-7473063d4f6d
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/
long articles but definitely well worth the read to transition into the ultimate blackpill.
https://the-boomer-tribune.medium.com/hbd-jump-starter-7473063d4f6d
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-911-conspiracy-theories/
long articles but definitely well worth the read to transition into the ultimate blackpill.
Not me. You have to be really discriminating, and this is difficult because we are taught to be incredulous believers. We are taught science in this most authoritarian way possible, so much that what is called "science" today does not resemble any process we would use to actually understand the world. This way we are taught to think has been detrimental in basically every way imaginable, and that was the intent. This education, if it can be called that, had to be forcibly imposed at gunpoint and with threats of social punishment for the slightest infraction.
One thing you have to be aware of is that you can't confuse politics with any sort of truth. The whole point of politics, from its earliest conception, is to lie and dissemble about even basic things. It is important to understand actual political theory and practices, but if someone is trying to sell you ideology, they're the worst sort of people. Again, this comes back to the kind of education most of us receive. The philosophers were always representatives of the ruling class in some way or another, and couldn't be anything else. The truth of these things is simpler than we are led to believe, but at the same time, we have to contend with a web of lies. Humans are, in the end, little more than jabbering apes who say things not out of a desire for truth but for power and prestige. They cannot help what they are.
The key is not to seek "ultimate truth", or some simple answer that is easily digestible. That is always going to be a path to doing the easiest and laziest thing possible. We have to really start by asking ourselves how we compose our basic understanding of the world and our relation to it. It is not hard to figure out that "we" don't actually exist as we think we do. Evidence of this is that we are subject to external forces to even contemplate our own existence, and we are clearly not in total command of our experience. We are born and we die, and our sense is limited. This has been known for a long time, but to admit this too frankly would defeat much of the bullshit that is politically necessary and socially obligatory. The grandiose claims of those who want to tell us what we're supposed to think would be recognized as pointless at best, but more than that we would see that a horrible swindle has robbed us of things that could have been basic. If the game is ever given up, then everything we've been told about our lives was a lie and we would be very, very angry to say the least. It is more useful to figure out for yourself what is going on, and consider the words of others only when they can be fit into an understanding we would have organically. This isn't easy, and in my opinion it won't be possible to do this on a massive scale without a rethinking of our basic approach to education and science. Such a rethinking is likely impossible due to political necessity of the way things are for some people, and because most humans really aren't interested in such a project. Only the truly desperate, who have in the present understanding little to hold on to, are willing to consider that undertaking with any seriousness, and they could only do it for themselves.
Why you would want to do any of this, or live at all, is really a different question. I think there is something deeply offensive about the way we are always lied to about everything and denigrated, so much that humans cannot tolerate living in such a world. We were never meant to live the way we do, and evidence of this is how destructive the current way of life is towards even basic functioning. It is driving the majority of humanity insane, and this is by design so that sanity and reliable information is the province of an elite, and the direction of human advancement can be controlled.
One thing you have to be aware of is that you can't confuse politics with any sort of truth. The whole point of politics, from its earliest conception, is to lie and dissemble about even basic things. It is important to understand actual political theory and practices, but if someone is trying to sell you ideology, they're the worst sort of people. Again, this comes back to the kind of education most of us receive. The philosophers were always representatives of the ruling class in some way or another, and couldn't be anything else. The truth of these things is simpler than we are led to believe, but at the same time, we have to contend with a web of lies. Humans are, in the end, little more than jabbering apes who say things not out of a desire for truth but for power and prestige. They cannot help what they are.
The key is not to seek "ultimate truth", or some simple answer that is easily digestible. That is always going to be a path to doing the easiest and laziest thing possible. We have to really start by asking ourselves how we compose our basic understanding of the world and our relation to it. It is not hard to figure out that "we" don't actually exist as we think we do. Evidence of this is that we are subject to external forces to even contemplate our own existence, and we are clearly not in total command of our experience. We are born and we die, and our sense is limited. This has been known for a long time, but to admit this too frankly would defeat much of the bullshit that is politically necessary and socially obligatory. The grandiose claims of those who want to tell us what we're supposed to think would be recognized as pointless at best, but more than that we would see that a horrible swindle has robbed us of things that could have been basic. If the game is ever given up, then everything we've been told about our lives was a lie and we would be very, very angry to say the least. It is more useful to figure out for yourself what is going on, and consider the words of others only when they can be fit into an understanding we would have organically. This isn't easy, and in my opinion it won't be possible to do this on a massive scale without a rethinking of our basic approach to education and science. Such a rethinking is likely impossible due to political necessity of the way things are for some people, and because most humans really aren't interested in such a project. Only the truly desperate, who have in the present understanding little to hold on to, are willing to consider that undertaking with any seriousness, and they could only do it for themselves.
Why you would want to do any of this, or live at all, is really a different question. I think there is something deeply offensive about the way we are always lied to about everything and denigrated, so much that humans cannot tolerate living in such a world. We were never meant to live the way we do, and evidence of this is how destructive the current way of life is towards even basic functioning. It is driving the majority of humanity insane, and this is by design so that sanity and reliable information is the province of an elite, and the direction of human advancement can be controlled.
No, thinking about existance and determining ones posture is what made me myself. Before that i was just a vessel.
>>191192
Are there any books about people who spent 20 years of their life doing nothing and then turned it all around?
Are there any books about people who spent 20 years of their life doing nothing and then turned it all around?
File: 1657926550823.jpg (63.75 KB, 758x644, 379:322, 1557439055164.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>193030
we're all writing our own
we're all writing our own
There are 4 types of people:
1. The one which doesn't care about philosophy at all.
2. The one which reads philosophy.
3. The one which writes philosophy.
4. The one which lives philosophy.
In my opinion, 1 and 2 are both morons. 3 is kind of enlightened but 4 is what you should strive for.
1. The one which doesn't care about philosophy at all.
2. The one which reads philosophy.
3. The one which writes philosophy.
4. The one which lives philosophy.
In my opinion, 1 and 2 are both morons. 3 is kind of enlightened but 4 is what you should strive for.
>>193182
Hard to accept when I'm more of a specter, a mere spectator in this life.
So "living" anything is a distant fantasy.
How do you "live" philosophy? What is philosophy in your view? The first guy is living in ignorance. Ignorance could be a form of philosophy of life.
The second that reads is an observer, his philosophy of life could be that he is here to experience the world and aspects of the universe presented to him in his unique way.
The third could very well be me writing my nonsense here, which could be seen as moronic rather than enlightened.
So why would number four be one to strive for?
Striving is inherently meaningless in my view as most things in this world seem to simply "be" rather than "become".
Hard to accept when I'm more of a specter, a mere spectator in this life.
So "living" anything is a distant fantasy.
How do you "live" philosophy? What is philosophy in your view? The first guy is living in ignorance. Ignorance could be a form of philosophy of life.
The second that reads is an observer, his philosophy of life could be that he is here to experience the world and aspects of the universe presented to him in his unique way.
The third could very well be me writing my nonsense here, which could be seen as moronic rather than enlightened.
So why would number four be one to strive for?
Striving is inherently meaningless in my view as most things in this world seem to simply "be" rather than "become".
>>193183
You are still alive, right? Then you can live philosophy. What I mean by this is finding some philosophy which suits you or making up your own and living according to it. From what you wrote it sounds like you are something like a taoist.
>The first guy is living in ignorance. Ignorance could be a form of philosophy of life.
There is a difference between someone who actually thought about the deeper things of existence and decided it's not worth bothering with them and your average man who never even questioned anything.
>The second that reads is an observer, his philosophy of life could be that he is here to experience the world and aspects of the universe presented to him in his unique way.
The 2nd is just swallowing the ideas of others, nothing more. This is pretty much people who think they are so wise because they read many books relating to philosophy, while actually they are parroting the ideas of other men and don't know how to think for themselves or how to come up with original thoughts.
>The third could very well be me writing my nonsense here, which could be seen as moronic rather than enlightened.
You wrote down your own thoughts, that's never moronic.
4 is the best because it combines intellectual pursuits with pragmatism. If you can't live according to your ideology then you are a living contradiction to me. Like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche for example, the kings of roleplaying. I consider the ideal philosopher to be someone like Diogenes.
Striving is fun. Shaping yourself is also exciting. At least to me. Man is in the process of becoming always, unless he takes control of himself and becomes something that he sticks with. I can respect this kind of endurance and living according to what you preach.
You are still alive, right? Then you can live philosophy. What I mean by this is finding some philosophy which suits you or making up your own and living according to it. From what you wrote it sounds like you are something like a taoist.
>The first guy is living in ignorance. Ignorance could be a form of philosophy of life.
There is a difference between someone who actually thought about the deeper things of existence and decided it's not worth bothering with them and your average man who never even questioned anything.
>The second that reads is an observer, his philosophy of life could be that he is here to experience the world and aspects of the universe presented to him in his unique way.
The 2nd is just swallowing the ideas of others, nothing more. This is pretty much people who think they are so wise because they read many books relating to philosophy, while actually they are parroting the ideas of other men and don't know how to think for themselves or how to come up with original thoughts.
>The third could very well be me writing my nonsense here, which could be seen as moronic rather than enlightened.
You wrote down your own thoughts, that's never moronic.
4 is the best because it combines intellectual pursuits with pragmatism. If you can't live according to your ideology then you are a living contradiction to me. Like Schopenhauer or Nietzsche for example, the kings of roleplaying. I consider the ideal philosopher to be someone like Diogenes.
Striving is fun. Shaping yourself is also exciting. At least to me. Man is in the process of becoming always, unless he takes control of himself and becomes something that he sticks with. I can respect this kind of endurance and living according to what you preach.
The only truth I found that matters to our actual living is that all motivation and emotion is an expression of the desire to cease experiencing said motivation and emotion. All else is superfluous, including what you choose to do with that information. My initial assumption was that this means that resolving your everything is found in losing the capacity to feel and the most reasonable path to that is currently death. Something I am too irrational or too incompetent to seek out (depending on your take on free will).
Now narratives are not philosophy but philosophies are often used as narratives. These can be useful just to provide yourself some soothing salve and allow yourself to be a worse person to yourself and others under the sultry justifications. Something I think we all use to a certain extent at least. Narratives used for positive reasons I haven't heard of. I imagine if it had such positive results you wouldn't need to be told it was good.
And lastly there is the practicality of the simple joy of solving problems which is inherent to all study so obviously also philosophical study. Organize that information, make sense of it. Feels good. Time passes.
Now narratives are not philosophy but philosophies are often used as narratives. These can be useful just to provide yourself some soothing salve and allow yourself to be a worse person to yourself and others under the sultry justifications. Something I think we all use to a certain extent at least. Narratives used for positive reasons I haven't heard of. I imagine if it had such positive results you wouldn't need to be told it was good.
And lastly there is the practicality of the simple joy of solving problems which is inherent to all study so obviously also philosophical study. Organize that information, make sense of it. Feels good. Time passes.
>>186464
A lot of philosophy is just a confusion and mix up of language. (Wittgenstein realised this). However it is not worthless provided you don’t get bogged down in dogmatic belief.
It is more useful to study things like mathematics, and finance in this world. Learn how to live well through trial and error.
A lot of philosophy is just a confusion and mix up of language. (Wittgenstein realised this). However it is not worthless provided you don’t get bogged down in dogmatic belief.
It is more useful to study things like mathematics, and finance in this world. Learn how to live well through trial and error.
I wasted my high school years being a stupid fucking /pol/tard. The only form of philosophy I know about is stoicism, and I've failed to apply it.
>>196027
>I wasted my high school years being a stupid fucking /pol/tard.
You aren't the only one, buddy. Me too and probably lots of other people fell for that stupidity during our teenage years. Later when I discovered how norm-centric national socialism was and how they gassed people like me I became disillusioned with the whole thing. I feel like natsoc and /pol/ in general are for those who are too retarded to understand Nietzsche. Just read Nietzsche really, he gives you everything /pol/ promises to give you but can't because ultimately natsoc is for the average person, it is a mass ideology.
All you need is Nietzsche and Epicurus to start with. I read other philosophers only out of curiosity, not because I consider them to be wise or logical.
>>196026
Haven't read Witt yet but I agree with him. I always thought 90% of philosophers had the same thoughts and ideals in mind but used different words and aspect to express themselves.
I don't know about math or finance. They may be useful but I just don't find them to be interesting subjects. I like philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, political science, etc things along this line.
>I wasted my high school years being a stupid fucking /pol/tard.
You aren't the only one, buddy. Me too and probably lots of other people fell for that stupidity during our teenage years. Later when I discovered how norm-centric national socialism was and how they gassed people like me I became disillusioned with the whole thing. I feel like natsoc and /pol/ in general are for those who are too retarded to understand Nietzsche. Just read Nietzsche really, he gives you everything /pol/ promises to give you but can't because ultimately natsoc is for the average person, it is a mass ideology.
All you need is Nietzsche and Epicurus to start with. I read other philosophers only out of curiosity, not because I consider them to be wise or logical.
>>196026
Haven't read Witt yet but I agree with him. I always thought 90% of philosophers had the same thoughts and ideals in mind but used different words and aspect to express themselves.
I don't know about math or finance. They may be useful but I just don't find them to be interesting subjects. I like philosophy, history, psychology, sociology, political science, etc things along this line.
>>196091
What are you talking about start w/ plato or even start with the illiad/oddessy/great books in general (How to read a book is a good general intro). If you just start reading nietzche you won't get anything because much of what he's doing is responding to earlier thinkers/greek tragedy/plato. Philosophy is fun to pick at but that's really just something to do along with diving into the thing as a whole which involves going to the roots. Greek tragedy / Plato / Aristotle are just necessary background for engaging in anything written for serious people. Plato also is very fun and enjoyable to read (Nietzsche is as well though) but I have no idea why anyone wouldn't start with Plato at the least, the things are like 10-50 pages long for the most part as well as generally pretty fun and are basically the foundation of all philosophy.
What are you talking about start w/ plato or even start with the illiad/oddessy/great books in general (How to read a book is a good general intro). If you just start reading nietzche you won't get anything because much of what he's doing is responding to earlier thinkers/greek tragedy/plato. Philosophy is fun to pick at but that's really just something to do along with diving into the thing as a whole which involves going to the roots. Greek tragedy / Plato / Aristotle are just necessary background for engaging in anything written for serious people. Plato also is very fun and enjoyable to read (Nietzsche is as well though) but I have no idea why anyone wouldn't start with Plato at the least, the things are like 10-50 pages long for the most part as well as generally pretty fun and are basically the foundation of all philosophy.
>>196176
It depends on what you want. If you want to be a scholar then read everything because ultimately all of human culture is connected on some level. But most likely you will be bored to tears because of most of the things you will be forced to read.
Start with the greeks is a /lit/ meme and while sure, it can be understood why it is said but if you just want to read something that resonates with your character then just pick up that author/writer/philosopher and read him. You don't have to understand all the witty references in a work to get it. Nietzsche especially is someone whose work is easy to understand for anyone, except for Zarathustra (but that is an overrated book anyway).
Reading everything or starting from the beginning is the biggest waste of time. You have to filter out the stuff that you don't care about. I read most of Plato and I can say that I regret it, thousands of pages and mostly I disagreed with him on pretty much everything. There is no point or value in reading someone's ramblings when you already know that your perspective differs from his radically.
I don't know why you mention Greek Tragedy at all, I'm reading greek tragedies now and I love them but they don't have anything to do with philosophy. Same for Homer.
There is no reason to wear yourself down reading works you aren't interested in. Unless of course, you want to be an extremely cultured and learned man who can boast that he has read everything important.
It depends on what you want. If you want to be a scholar then read everything because ultimately all of human culture is connected on some level. But most likely you will be bored to tears because of most of the things you will be forced to read.
Start with the greeks is a /lit/ meme and while sure, it can be understood why it is said but if you just want to read something that resonates with your character then just pick up that author/writer/philosopher and read him. You don't have to understand all the witty references in a work to get it. Nietzsche especially is someone whose work is easy to understand for anyone, except for Zarathustra (but that is an overrated book anyway).
Reading everything or starting from the beginning is the biggest waste of time. You have to filter out the stuff that you don't care about. I read most of Plato and I can say that I regret it, thousands of pages and mostly I disagreed with him on pretty much everything. There is no point or value in reading someone's ramblings when you already know that your perspective differs from his radically.
I don't know why you mention Greek Tragedy at all, I'm reading greek tragedies now and I love them but they don't have anything to do with philosophy. Same for Homer.
There is no reason to wear yourself down reading works you aren't interested in. Unless of course, you want to be an extremely cultured and learned man who can boast that he has read everything important.
You see, I have lost interest in alot of things, a while back I used to read alot about alot of stuff, but after reading about evolutionary psychology and seeing that almost everything is just a game for power and reproduction… Well.. alot of stuff just lost his appeal, because you can see that behind many things there's a the hidden had of reproduction and power over thing, power to exercise the reproductive imperative, gene that wants to copy themselves. The only thing that still appeal is mathematics and his philosophy, because something about math is beyond human.
>>196210
You should get your T level's checked, ever since they started putting plastic in all the water everyones turning gay and effeminate.
You should get your T level's checked, ever since they started putting plastic in all the water everyones turning gay and effeminate.