[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/wiz/ - Wizardry

Disregard Females, Acquire Magic
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1600998602675.jpg (180.82 KB, 541x800, 541:800, 800wm.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


What are some of your favorite philosophical, deep, spiritual, and metaphysical views? regardless of whether you believe in them or not.

I consider myself a kind of dualistic variant of Schopenhauer. I agree with most of Schopenhauer ethical views regarding animal welfare, antinatalism, anti-progressivism, ascetism, compassion, and much more, but I disagree with his monistic metaphysics though I sympathize with his later use of Platonic Forms. I think the dualism of Mani and Empedocles were closer to the Truth. There are fundamentally two mutually antagonistic Wills of Love/order/good and Strife/chaos/evil.
Schopenhauer respected the cosmological dualist viewpoint of Zoroastrianism moreso than Abrahamic monotheism as expressed in the "On the Suffering of this World". Granted, I think if Cologne Mani Codex were uncovered and translated during Schopenhauer's time, he would have also found a kindred spirit in Mani, though he may have still claimed the Upanishads spoke more to himself.
Also, visual representation is a better way to understand the fundamental dual nature of Will, not music. This is because it is easier to see the fundamental distinctiveness of the separate yet conflicting Wills through vision.


that philosophy is not real because it is too obfuscated by whatever fashionable names and terms


I like Pyrrhonism. Some phunny anecdotes about Pyrrho having to have an entourage of acolytes who followed him around, because he was so nonjudgemental and averse to belief that he would start to walk towards packs of rabid dogs or right into open pits.


I've never read Schopenhauer and I'm not well read on any philosophy so I can't add much. I also want you to break down your philosophy without jargon even if it takes a few thousand words because it's too vague.
For example, how was the "Dualism of Mani and Empedocles" closer to the Truth? What is your opinion of what the Truth is if you disagree with the monistic metaphysics?
That sounds like the comedic thing that a historian would add to his biography to discredit him and have a chuckle.


Post-truth omni-nihilo-trivialist, follower of the absolute divinity, worshiper of the number 0, radical selfist and perpetual motion chaos evoker.


well like the former manichean St Augustine said there was no real Evil in the world because its just an absence of Good. Schopenhauer said theres no real good its just the absence of Bad.

So are you saying there is actual Good in the world and that is where you disagree with Schopenhauer? So then it would seem you have more optimism than him


Yet another philosophies/worldviews thread. These things pop up every few months around here, no offense OP.

I don't have much to say, I'm pretty disillusioned with philosophy as a whole. Most of philosophy is about rich bourgeoisie kids replying to each other and referring to each other throughout history, whining about their ideas not having enough followers and themselves not getting the recognition they (think) they deserve, meaning they want praises, prizes and prestige more than anything else. It is quite pathetic that even such free-thinkers and big individuals as Nietzsche desired the very society to acknowledge them and their works that they supposedly loathed.
Anyway, I would consider myself as hedonist. I'm quite certain that underneath everything we say or do we strive towards pleasures, even if we aren't conscious of it. No matter what noble goal or great ideal you follow, you most likely follow it because it gives you a sense of pleasure. Our whole existence is aimed towards Pleasure, it is only romanticized folly to state that there are more important things than Pleasure.
I prefer a balance of individualism and collectivism, as I think serving the community will improve our own individual lives too in the end, at least we are herd animals to a certain extent. Individualism and collectivism are both inherent qualities of mankind and if people try stray too far from the middle path they will only end up as caricatures of human beings at best. On one end of the spectrum you lose yourself and become another bee in the hive, in the other case you become a total asshole.
As for materialism or is there more to the world, I don't see why there couldn't exist invisible and imperceptible powers who could influence our lives. Though it is useless to spend much time contemplating this because we will likely never know for sure and it doesn't matter either way.


Suitheism. If there is a god, it's me. After death I'll meet divine Me. He'll absorb my memory and experience and then send me for another reincarnation. Divine escapism.


we meant to understand our world as existing during the trend from love to strife, or the other way round? I get that strife is very present, but is that because we have recently been in the complete domination of strife, or because we are imminently heading towards it?

I'm guessing the latter because the description of the dominance of love reminds me of other cosmogonical beliefs about a kind of primordial soup with all stuffs mixed etc. but I'm not confident. Help a brainlet out please


What do you guys think about the reincarnation element in Empedocles? How does it fit with his "coming together of more fundamental elements" view of beings? Does the soul have any integrity for Empedocles? Is it possible that he had exoteric/esoteric teachings? Or conversely, is it even possible that the reincarnation stuff wasn't written by the same figure as the writer of the elements & love/strife stuff, or perhaps that Empedocles moved from one position to the other over time?


Philosophy is worse then worthless, it's toxic. Get a practical skill and hobby.


Philosophy is indeed useless. Philosophy is just a hobby.
In the end, most people do not really need it or even understand it. Their philosophies are usually just trite simplifications of certain schools that have no real bearing on their life; It's either a term they use to justify how they would act regardless of if they knew of the philosophy or not, or they use it as another on of their "identities" like gay/black/trans/otherkin/et cetera.
I find that it's the ultimate pseudo-intellectual "study". In the end, it's not real and it's also useless in almost all practical functions- it's just a hobby for people to try to describe the world given some arbitrary assumptions. It can be fun, though. Sometimes.




It's not a hobby, it's a vice and a sickness


If philosophy is a hobby then so is masturbation and drugs


You sound like a chickenhead. It's whatever you want to think it is, "It can be fun, though. Sometimes."


Yes those both are.


File: 1601125306214.jpg (19.56 KB, 348x450, 58:75, 69aa3a00b84e8d3f212638d4e7….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

All philosophy. and contemporary knowledge of the world can't minimize the pain of a teeth ash.


Painkillers are a product of "contemporary knowledge" and they minimize toothache. That's factually wrong, wiz.


This is dumb and actually wrong when anesthesia exists.
Anesthesia is a product of knowledge, so contemporary knowledge in fact minimizes the pain


Other wizzies have already proved you wrong regarding contemporary knowledge, but philosophy is capable of it as well if you actually explore it in all it's variations and go deep enough into the secrets that are hidden in the places where only supposed madmen dare tread.


I like Buddhism but in my ignorance or something else I prefer to call delusion "perspective", enlightment "less painful perspective" and I don't think everybody has the buddha nature to dig themselves out of mental anguish they find themselves in. In fact I think very few people can do that. Also I've become a fatalist somewhat recently. We were all put in motion by forces we don't understand and every thought and action is the direct result of it and completely beyond our control.


I tell you people, knowledge is not to throw into painlessness. Rather the opposite.

you all know that suffering is not optional.


File: 1601157133125.png (2.04 MB, 1145x828, 1145:828, Necron_Warriors_vs_UM.png) ImgOps iqdb

My worldview is a kind of mix between Inmendham's Efilism and Nick Land's philosophy. I believe techno-capital and eventually an AI will take over our planet. Organic life, more inefficient and stupid, will be displaced by Technium, the meatspace by cyberspace. And basically, as a sort of pro-tech and anti-Darwinian malware Gnostic that I am, I see this as positive thing.


I believe heaven’s gate is most likely correct. If you read through all of their various materials there is a lot of truth in it. Such as the humans being created by “The Evolutionary Level Above Human” (aka aliens). Really most ufo religions greatly interest me and I think its foolish to discredit and disregard them so quickly.


Favorite that I mostly believe is probably Objectivism. It is logically consistent.

Favorite I don't really believe is occultism. It is pretty interesting even if it is pretty obviously made up for the most part.

What I actually use the most however is a heavily modified version of stoicism and secular Taoism. The whole things are how they are and all you truly have under your control is how you deal with it, aligning yourself with reality and and learning to work with nature's flow rather than bullheadely insisting on doing things how you subjectivity think they should be done is the best way, that kind of thing.
It's boring once you get the hang of it but universally useful and practical.


It is optional though. Pain is an inevitable part of life, but focusing on it is up to you. Even if your life is maximum suck, you can still do your best to focus on the positives, which everyone has some. That is a decision you have the power to make. Harder for some, easier for some, still a choice.


Pain is inevitable, suffering is a choice.

Pain is a sensory imput.
Suffering is a subjective experience that exists exclusively as a construct in the mind. One can experience pain and not ever suffer. On the flip side one can endlessly suffer but never know significant pain with a maladaptive mindset.
Pain is just information your body provides to aid in keeping you alive.
Suffering doesn't objectively exist. It is a idea, a mindset, a phantom, a spook.


Nice fantasy.
It will take a long time for that to happen, and I'd say the probability of that happening is close to 0. If "the technology" takes over, it will be like what's in this video.


I like Wittgenstein’s later views of language games. It seems like a very simple idea but once you realize the extent to which it applies to all language and conversation you realize how much of what people argue about is just based on how words “should” be defined.


my favorite philosophy is obviously veganism. im autistic and its one of my autistic obsessions. in other less reputable parts of the internet, i enjoy shamelessly derailing everything into animal ethics, talking about it in inappropriate times, and debating for hours sometimes with people

even in world of warcraft, i regularly get sidetracked for hour long conversations when i just randomly chat with people and it derails my own aoe mage grinding. this has happened many times

also, i wish i was intelligent enough to understand complex philosophy, but alas, im just a stupid stinky neet

but its fun to listen to, even if a lot of it goes over my head. i sometimes try to listen to audiobooks of shaupenhaur or kant on subjects i find interesting, but most of it goes over my head

i really liked shelly kegan's course on the philosophy of death on youtube. also i like to listen to "closer to truth" where they talk about stuff like philosophy, free will, god, consciousness, etc. obviously im just a dummy layman with a casual interest in this stuff, so anything that your local grandma cant understand i usually cant either. stuff like this i chain listen to while gaming


i dont really have any strongly held beliefs in any philosophies besides veganism, but i do strongly believe in a omnniscient omnipotent god, outside out any religious context. its so hard for me not to call god a evil unjust demon, but until i see evidence of justice, i feel its correct to do

if i had money and half a working brain, i would study the metaphysics and ontology of god in some university, but im honestly too dumb. i literally failed applied and remedial level english a good 4-5 times atleast


Ah, you are who people call "veganon". You need a new name, like veggimancer.



I really thought that people like you two had already been advised that this is no place for your likes.


>How dare someone think differently to me in a thread all about personal viewpoints and philosophies
>Reeeeee at the wrong thinkers

How about you actually use logic and reason to explain what problem you have with what I have said or explain how it is in anyway incompatible with wizardry.


Can someone summarise this thread for me? It makes my head meat hurt!


The longest reply chain is 5, the next longest is 2. How can this be a hard one?


Solipsism except it's my sub conscious reality not my conscious reality.



Shut up zoomer. Get a fucking grip for God's sake.


If we live in a materialistic world there's no difference between suffering and pain. Both are not an option. Both are results of cause and effect. Also both are routed in physical reality. Your brain makes you suffer just like it gives you tooth pain, suffering is a physical reaction. You go to the doctor and take meds to fight the tooth pain. Guess what most people do to fight suffering? The very same just different branches of medicine.

You propose a strong subjective agent plus free will when saying that suffering is a choice. Have you read any philosophy after the enlightment era? I didn't think so.

That's pretty much what I'm trying to do most of the time.


Don't listen to audio books when you're new to philosophy. It's necessary to read in the beginning and take your time and follow your own pace no matter how slow it is initially. Reread passages multiple times until you get them. Schopenhauer actually is a very approachable author when you read him and have no idea of philosophy other than Kant for example. But depending on how much you want to dive into it it's necessary to start with the Greeks. After that you're free to do whatever interests you though imho.

I think both, Wittgenstein's tractatus as well as his later works are very helpful. I especially enjoyed his work 'on certainty'. It's almost humorustic but perfectly on point.



I understand this more than I did a year ago


How does the brain produces the subjective sensation of suffering? It's just physical, why should it feel like anything?


Philosophy is mostly bullshit. It misuses language, changing and arguing about words'meanings. I think I am a materialist. To me, we ara mere conscious/rational animals and our natural state is that of struggle, cruelty and war.


I love to think of suicide and nothingness. I see no real reason for anything sentient to exist. I dream of a world where everything is an object but obviously there would be noone to witness it. Hate of life is a real passion of mine. I see biology as a mistake that needs to be eradicated. That should be the number one priority of humanity and the biggest problem on how to go about doing it. Sterilisation of all animals and killing all insects and plants is a demanding task but doable. The human problem is easy: sterilise everyone. (All this obviously implies that this process is in the hands of a benevolent world leader and that he is an all powerful dictator). I also believe that the right to die should be granted and that it is the number 1 human right. The right to exit. Obviously veganism would be mandatory and abortions as well.


File: 1605076479390.jpg (56.44 KB, 750x350, 15:7, 00-featured-tadokoro-megum….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Philosophy is mostly bullshit. It misuses language
Sophistry does and a lot of philosophy is flawed.
>I think I am a materialis
Well then
>consider the following

The philosopher cannot prove if his abstract concepts which point to a possible cause of existence are correct and the scientist can never peer outside of the representation and peek at what the true form of reality is beyond figuring out laws that govern our world with no actual claim to why they manifested.

[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]