There have been a few pessimistic philosophers who killed themselves also Emil. Cioran practised what he preached>the problem with killing yourself is that it is always too late
Can someone explain to me why Nietzsche is so revered when it seems that his "solution" to Nihilism was just to cope as best you can? it seems dame obvious and soemthing anyone could figure out without needing to read Schopenhauer.
You might be interested in reading this it is free to download https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9429159-suicide-note
this man decided that life really was meaningless and killed himself after writing a bunch of his ideas which I never finished sadly but it is meme worthy and good it has chapters titled>obama the super nigger
and has some interesting theories about jews even though he is jewish himself.
Svhopenhauer practised what he preached in a way though by being insufferable and negative to most people.
Those are niggers, not humans.
>>177280>Nietzsche was basically a crab who I suspect would have abandoned every one of his principles the minute a succubus [aid him a moment's notice.
Supposing truth to be a succubus – what? is the suspicion not well founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of succubi? that the gruesome earnestness, the clumsy importunity with which they have hitherto been in the habit of approaching truth have been inept and improper means for winning a wench? Certainly she has not let herself be won – and today every kind of dogmatism stands sad and discouraged. If
it continues to stand at all! For there are scoffers who assert it has fallen down, that dogmatism lies on the floor, more, that dogmatism is at its last gasp. To speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all dogmatizing in philosophy, the solemn air of finality it has given itself notwithstanding, may none the less have been no more than a noble childishness and tyronism; and the time is perhaps very close at hand when it will be grasped in case after case what
has been sufficient to furnish the foundation-stone for such sublime and unconditional philosophers' edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto been constructing – some popular superstition or other from time immemorial (such as the soul superstition which, as the subject-and-ego superstition, has not yet ceased to do mischief even today), perhaps some play on words, a grammatical seduction, or an audacious generalization on the basis of very narrow, very personal, very human, all too human facts. Let us hope that dogmatic philosophy was only a promise across millennia: as, in a still earlier age, was astrology, in the service of which more labour, money, ingenuity and patience has perhaps been expended than for any real science hitherto – we owe to it and to its ‘supra-terrestrial’ claims the grand style of architecture in Asia and Egypt. It seems that, in order to inscribe themselves in the hearts of humanity with eternal demands, all great things have first to wander the earth as monstrous and fear-inspiring grotesques: dogmatic philosophy, the doctrine of the Vedanta in Asia and Platonism in Europe for example, was a grotesque of this kind. Let us not be ungrateful to it, even though it certainly has to be admitted that the worst, most wearisomely protracted and most dangerous of all errors hitherto has been a dogmatist's error, namely Plato's invention of pure spirit and the good in itself. But now, when that has been overcome, when Europe breathes again after this nightmare and can enjoy at any rate a healthier – sleep, we whose task is wakefulness itself
have inherited all the strength which has been cultivated by the struggle against this error. To be sure, to speak of spirit and the good as Plato did meant standing truth on her head and denying perspective itself, the basic condition of all life; indeed, one may ask as a physician: ‘how could such a malady attack this loveliest product of antiquity, Plato? did the wicked Socrates corrupt him after all? could Socrates have been a corrupter of youth after all? and have deserved his hemlock?’ – But the struggle against Plato, or, to express it more plainly and for ‘the people’, the struggle against the Christian-ecclesiastical pressure of millennia – for Christianity is Platonism for ‘the people’ – has created in Europe a magnificent tension of the spirit such as has never existed on earth before: with so tense a bow one can now shoot for the most distant targets. European man feels this tension as a state of distress, to be sure; and there have already been two grand attempts to relax the bow, once by means of Jesuitism, the second time by means of democratic enlightenment – which latter may in fact, with the aid of freedom of the press and the reading of newspapers, achieve a state of affairs in which the spirit would no longer so easily feel itself to be a ‘need’! (The Germans invented gun-powder – all credit to them! But they evened the score again – they invented the press.) But we who are neither Jesuits nor democrats, nor even sufficiently German, we good Europeans and free, very free spirits – we have it still, the whole need of the spirit and the whole tension of its bow! And perhaps also the arrow, the task and, who knows? the target…
Literally addressed in the preface nibba.
Philosophy isn't about doctrine. You don't want to read, you just want a self-help (or in that case, self-pity) guru.
Schop said a hypocritical philosopher is just an ugly man who crafts beautiful sculptures
Al-Ma'arri. My most favorite and badass antinatalist of them all. He's really amazing. Also a bonafide ArchWizard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ma%27arri
I also like Thomas Ligotti, his interviews are great.
Philosophy is just thinking with abstracts and no goal other than the joy of developing and indulging in thoughts.
Schopenhauer was based as a philosopher and as a person. He disregarded succubi more than most wizards would.
Philosophy is supposed to relate to real life. It's not art.
>Have there been any philosophers who had a sound ideology which they actually practised?
Most of the stoic philosophers. It is a practical philosophy meant to be practiced rather than idly thought about in the abstract. So most stoic writers of note walked the walk long before they wrote anything.
There's already too much nauseating real life and you can't avoid it anyhow. Philosophy is actually supposed to be art.
Buddhism, Taoism and other Eastern traditions are basically just philosophy. Lots of practitioners.
Doesn't ad hominem go against the whole principle of philosophical debate?
The arguments stand or fail on their own merit irregardless of the character of the speaker. Its philosophy not sainthood. If the philosopher is a bad person by the standards of his own philosophy, that actually establishes the truth of his philosophy in judging what is good and bad.
For philosophy it is better that his ethical system be right and he be a bad man not living to it. Then his philosophy be wrong, and he be a good man for not living by his wrong ideas.
Hume, Kant, Nietzsche and Spinoza have all at times been praised for being nicer guys than their own philosophy rigorously enforced would imply. But thats no compliment to their philosophy.
Fernando Pessoa wrote a lot about embracing your dream life and finding solace and comfort in the dream world. From what I've read about his personal life he living that ideal pretty good.
loook up mainlander, took his philosophy to the logical conclusion and ropedhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Mainländer
that's a new reading recommendation, thanks anon
But I wasn't saying that their arguments are wrong. And of course being a hypocrite doesn't make them wrong. But it's interesting that they didn't live in accordance with the principles that they claimed were the right way to live.
yarr! where you find such treasures
I've just had it for a while LOL. I have it .pdf and .epub and also have it paperback. All 'em the Zenith Penguin Classics edition. It did took me awhile to find the e-versions using muh googlefu haha. If you guys want any more wizardly books just holler I can make a thread on /hob/ or dump them in an existing one I have a solid collection
wizardly books thread? Great idea!
>>177280>beat up an old lady because she pissed him off
That's actually cool
here check out the last 3 they are good wizard ones.
actually, this Pessoa dude will be more then enough for a while!
Started reading, it's beatiful. Reminds me of Kafka
yeah he talks like a pansy antinat but deep down he knows the pleasure of inflicting suffering on others
Mainlander, Michelstaedter, Caraco weren't larping
In general people who give advice tend to not follow it themselves. They are simply projecting. Jordan Peterson is a good example with his drug addiction, "clean your room" etc.
This is me people like to ask me for some reason for advice and can think I am wise but I never follow any of my own advice and do not think I am even wise probably give off that wizard vibe in a positive way.
Peterson is not a philosopher.
Many philosophers like Nietzsche are fun to read because they were legitimately smart people who spent their lives developing cool intellectual concepts, so you actually feel smarter for reading them. Comparison to normgroid self-help literature is ridiculous. People like Jordan Peterson who tell you to clean your room and spew random facts are not necessarily intelligent.
what's the story behind the webm?
Story? There's rarely a story, and when context is provided, it's nothing that justifies such brutality. Africans being torched alive by their kin is a daily occurrence, many such webs are circulating. Maybe he stole a basket of fruit, or was accused of using black magic to make the local succubi less horny. Such petty things and absurd lies are all it takes to rally a whole town together for a public torture.
You're more than welcome to go ask 4chan /gif/ for a dump of African torture videos. South African news outlets report on them all the time too. Ever hear of "necklacing"?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing
It became such a commonplace method of brutal execution that it found its way in to Hollywood as a villainous act. Yet in Africa it's just another way to treat someone who owes you a corn cob's worth of money, or to silence a crying child.
>are all philosophers charlatans and hypocrites
yes but not even they really know it. philosophers have a much greater desire to know than other people but its totally misdirected. They are still trying to use their intelligences to understand everything. which is like trying to put the universe through a small square hole. they fool themselves and their readers for a lifetime with vocabulary and thinking. the best 'philosophy' ive read is really just moody poetry.
if you are a real smart guy and you don't hide anything from yourself and you keep thinking you will find that logic and reason defeat themselves because you keep seeing loopholes and paradoxes. some scientist said that not even a super computer could calculate all the things that could happen to you just walking down the street. Its not very logical or reasonable to think your intelligence can.
all early philosophy for the greeks was inspired by spartan life and education. i believe plato said this. so in a way they lived their philosophy
Nietzche's work is the book of normiehood.
>Nietzsche was basically a crab who I suspect would have abandoned every one of his principles the minute a succubus [aid him a moment's notice.
What principles, op? Do you really not get what he is about? He was exactly against principles, ideologies and thought systems guiding the life of the individual instead of his egoistic desires. He never wrote against sex or relationships, he praised sex and hated chastity. He was pretty open about this thing, he died of syphilis for god's sake, he probably was a regular among whores. Certainly more honest than Schopenhauer ever was, who was a sociopathic, compulsive liar normalfag pretending to be a wizard/buddhist monk.>>181796
I kind of agree with you. He was pro-life, he was an optimist, he was "neopagan" in the worst way. Despite praising solitude he was never actually a true loner, he always had some intellectual friends he could exchange letters with or tour around Europe with. He hated weakness, was obsessed with appearing manly always, etc. So I see your point. As far as ideologies go, Schopenhauer's thought system is probably the most wizardly or epicureanism. But since Schope was a faker it is better to just read the stoics and eastern religious scriptures, really.
So is seducing lower class succubi like some PUA considered as something a buddhist would do? I'm not familiar with buddhism, just asking. Because that is what Arthur spent his time doing, when he wasn't writing philosophical texts or wasn't practicing asceticism.
Schopenhauer explicitly said that philosophy and sainthood are not the same thing. So I wouldn't say he was a hypocrite. He considered himself a philosopher, not a saint, and tried to objectively (philosophically) analyze the world. In his view, asceticism and contemplation are the highest moral ideals. But they are also extremely rare and difficult aspirations. According to Schopenhauer, the philosopher can rationally reach these conclusions, but that does not make him a saint himself.
So what you are saying is Schopenhauer knows that he is doing something wrong according to his own judgement, yet he is still doing it and doesn't intend on stopping, but his judgement is still correct.
That does not give a lot of credibility to his judgement, in my view.
>>181813>appeal to authority >literal ad hominem
Go to be normalfag somewhere else.
Even at wizchan i can't escape you and your faggotry.
>>181814>the author himself is not a reliable or qualified authority in his own philosophy>reads "his judgement" as "him"
please kill yourself and join your beloved scam artist, normalnigger.
Broken clocks are right twice a day. He doesn't have to be head over heels for Schopenhauer to like any of his ideas.
Socrates literaly died becuase he engaged in socratic dialouges too much.
He is right. There is no way to defend people like Schopenhauer. Either you think something is true and then you at least try to live according to it or you don't. He was a hedonist, despite claiming to be a pessimist. There is nothing wrong with hedonism, but it is wrong to be a hypocrite and to lie shamelessly.
Diogenes lived in a barrel and Mainlander hung himself on a stack of his own books
What a dumb argument. I know drinking is bad for me but that doesn't mean I want to stop. He doesn't have to be a good person to be credible.
Good, they were both pathetic annoying fucks who needed to stop bothering people with their useless ideas.
But he needs to follow his own ideas to be credible. Don't you understand? If even the guy who comes up with a philosophy doesn't want to follow his own advice then what is the point?>>181825
Thanks for dropping by, Chad.
You put too much belief in personal agency over manifest destiny and genetics.
Not all of us CAN be good people or follow ideals because of our predispositions.
If you inherited a gene from both your parents that makes you susceptible to alcohol abuse, you need near superhuman strength to stay away from it even for a week. Many end up addicts or homeless as a result.
Blaming their own choices is completely fruitless and futile. It was never "their choice".
But even that homeless alcoholic can teach younger people or others not predisposed to substance abuse like himself, to stay the hell away from it.
Because he knows. It destroys people. He may not be able to follow the advice personally, but he knows it's the right path.
Society usually calls people who are constantly able to make the right choices heroes.
Who never succumb to bad biological impulses and do what's best for the most amount of people.
Those people are extremely rare. Even most heroes in epics like the Iliad still have some flaws despite being offspring of literal gods.
your determinism is directly linked to your amount of consciousness. your average person is and i guarantee you 95% determined. If you meditate and become more aware of yourself, follow the yogic path you will become more and more free. you won't say "im like this because this" because you will know its all you. whenever you don't want to take responsibility for something you will blame some faculty in you. we are 100% free, we just don't realize the subtle ways we delude ourselves. But at the same time you can't blame a blind person for walking into a wall. This isn't about competition or being better than someone. its just liberation. I hate how the west has warped spirituality. they are so greedy they see it as a tool for gaining more material success and not freedom
Surprised no one mentioned this name yet, Marcus Aurelius is one of the very few who you can be 100% certain was being honest. His only "works" are a diary written to himself, its not a "logical" or "intellectual" read in the same way stuff like Kant or Hegel are, its just him trying to be as the stoic he wished he was himself. Personally I find it far more convincing to read than the (admittedly spectacular) mental gymnastics preformed by the more "traditional" philosophers. There is something genuine about reading someone giving themselves advice, you don't have to value what he does to see how he thinks.
A few of my favourites lines that I will never forget:>Nature did not blend things so inextricably that you can’t draw your own boundaries — place your own well-being in your own hands. It’s quite possible to be a good man without anyone realizing it. Remember that. you don’t need much to live happily. And just because you’ve abandoned your hopes of becoming a great thinker or scientist, don’t give up on attaining freedom, achieving humility, serving others, obeying God.>If it’s in your control, why do you do it? If it’s in someone else’s, then who are you blaming? Atoms? The gods? Stupid either way.>No one could ever accuse you of being quick-witted. All right, but there are plenty of other things you can’t claim you “haven’t got in you.” Practice the virtues you can show: honesty, gravity. endurance, austerity, resignation, abstinence, patience, sincerity, moderation, seriousness, high-mindedness. Don’t you see how much you have to offer — beyond excuses like “can’t”? And yet you still settle for less. Or is it some inborn condition that makes you whiny and grasping and obsequious, makes you complain about your body and curry favor and show off and leaves you so turbulent inside? No. You could have broken free a long way back. And then you would have been only a little slow. “Not so quick on the uptake.” And you need to work on that as well — that slowness. Not something to be ignored, let alone to prize>When you have to deal with someone, ask yourself: What does he mean by good and bad? If he thinks x or y about pleasure and pain (and what produces them), about fame and disgrace, about death and life, then it shouldn’t shock or surprise you when he does x or y. In fact, I’ll remind myself that he has no real choice. Remember: you shouldn’t be surprised that a fig tree produces figs, nor the world what it produces. A good doctor isn’t surprised when his patients have fevers, or a helmsman when the wind blows against him.
I think what I love most about Marcus is that he deals with issues by trying to find something that answers the dilemma by satisfying both options. You will find him speaking about "providence or atoms" (immaterial or material) many times through out, and his solution is not to say which is true, but to find something that is satisfactory to both so he can move on and implement it in his life. I'm not exactly a virtuous person in the same way Aurelius is or tried to be, but his thought patterns are something anyone should learn from in my opinion.
True, Aurelius is a good example and I like those quotes too.
What are you talking about? You sound like a soccer mom
Bullshit post. Determinism doesn't work like that. If people genuinely believe in a truth they think they uncovered then they at least try and fight to become a better person because this is the logical thing to do. Someone who completely does the opposite of what he teaches is just a hypocrite, no two ways about it. I mean, I am a determinist too but you are an idiot.>>181861>>181870
I will play along. Marcus was the head of an empire so he most likely rarely had to experience any sort of big trouble, anxiety or negative feeling. It is not hard to be a stoic sage when everyone is under you and follows your words. Diogenes is a much better example of stoic/cynic wisdom and lifestyle, imo.
>>181922>Marcus was the head of an empire so he most likely rarely had to experience any sort of big trouble, anxiety or negative feeling
I already know you have never been in charge of anything in your entire life, yet you think you still have the knowledge of such a positions in order to comment on them. Stay ignorant.
>>181922>Marcus was the head of an empire so he most likely rarely had to experience any sort of big trouble, anxiety or negative feeling
Do you know how many Roman emperors were brutally murdered? It's not like being a modern CEO, if you make the slightest mistake you were strangled to death in your bathtub that night. It was an extremely dangerous position with the sword of damocles hanging over you at all time.
I'd legit rather be a middling bureaucrat than a roman emperor in ancient rome.
Please, don't pretend that being the head emperor of a world empire is so hard to do. I acknowledge that it is a position that comes with certain dangers but it also has a LOT of advantages. Also, being killed or harmed? Arguably the average person is and was in the time of Marcus too more likely to suffer and to die violent deaths than the emperor himself.
Being at the top of society objectively makes life easier for anyone.
>>181956>Please, don't pretend that being the head emperor of a world empire is so hard to do.
here's your (you)
The emperor had countless people who gave him advice, he really didn't have to do anything special, any educated person could have sat on the throne and history would be the same. You are the same kind of person that would go on about how hard life is for the rich and powerful, yeah fuck off. Some people objectively have it easier.
It is very clear that you have never been in charge of anything at all in your entire life
No argument. Every kind of mildly educated person could be an emperor. Actually, intelligence could be disregarded, anyone with some self-confidence could have filled in the role of the ruler. Like I said, these persons don't really have to or had to perform anything, most things were handed to them by society willingly.>>181964
And the average person is free from any violent crimes, right? Fuck off. No matter how much you shill your faulty perspective, Marcus objectively had a great and easy life compared to most of the human population in history. It is no big feat to play the stoic when everyone is afraid of you.
Anyone who continues to reply to the retard earnestly is just as retarded as he is. Do yourself a favor and just ignore it.
Emperors weren't really meritocratic by the end of the empire, people were literally buying the seat from the Pretorian Guard by submitting bids for it.
The closest thing to a meritocratic genius in the Roman Empire would have been the consul, or during times of war, a dictator elected unanimously by the entire senate.
There were very few genuinely intelligent emperors (such as Hadrian) and one main reason for that was the heritability of the position. It should always have been a civil job.
Some of the worst emperors were deranged kids like Geta or Elagabalus, who both got murdered before they were 20 years old because they were so mentally incapable of doing their job.
They were most likely simpletons. The latter was only emperor because he was the grandnephew of Septimius Severus.
Dumb anime poster quotes imaginary posts with greentext and uploads an irrelevant anime image for no reason other than to act as his avatar since it doesn't even convey a reaction face for his text. Typical.
To be a philosopher you need to have a one-track mind.
I wouldn't listen to them.
Explain how the post doesn't relate to the ~10 before it or how the image isn't related.
roamn anime succubi
Dumb anime poster believes himself to be some sort of lord or god who can make irrelevant demands of me. Perhaps his delusional mind has sunk to believing he himself is living in an anime, and his avatar is "literally me" thus being somehow relevant. Has anyone let him know he isn't posting on Gaia yet?
If you don't see how the post and image are relevant that's your problem. What's irrelevant is whatever drama you've dragged into this thread.
*walks up to you and whispers*
"um sorry i actually dont get how the image is relevant tbh, but maybe im just dumb can you explain it to me but not him(in private messages)"
Of course its everyone else's problem, the anime poster has no ability to self-reflect or comprehend what is or is not relevant. For him, his personal anime avatar is ALWAYS relevant. Of course, quoting imaginary posts with greentext is also top anime posting, its always safe to argue against imaginary posts.
It's joking how the previous posts were characterizing the Roman empire in Anglo terms.>>182014
The only person lacking self-reflection here is you.
Defaulting to "no u" is a sign of someone who has nothing to say. Keep uploading avatars and quoting imaginary posts so you can have imaginary conversations. I'm sure you will anyways, even if God himself came down from the heavens and told you that you were stupid for doing so.
I don't think God would misinterpret a post so poorly.
Poor lad thinks his pretending to be innocent routine would work on an all knowing being. I guess watching cartoons doesn't make you smarter after all, huh.
The only crime here is you shitting up OP's thread with your hysterical drama because you saw a picture you didn't like.
As yes, another [its everyone else's fault except mine] post. Clearly you hold no fault for "shitting up OP's thread" despite doing the exact same thing as myself, while also being the catalyst for it because you demand that your gaia online profile pic is shown at all times.
>>182031>[its everyone else's fault except mine]
Yes, I'm not responsible for your posts.
>despite doing the exact same thing as myself
What's that, exactly?
>>182033>>182035>What's that, exactly?
Posting irrelevant posts to the OP, and in your case images too. I believe that is what you meant by "shitting up OP's thread", although I'm sure you plan to now twist it into some form where somehow your off topic posts are good and worthy of this thread, while my aren't. This is of course, despite the obvious reality that they aren't, and are "shitting up OP's thread" just as much as mine are.
>>182036>Posting irrelevant posts
What's irrelevant is whatever drama or anti-anime agenda you've dragged into this thread.
>and are "shitting up OP's thread" just as much as mine are.
I don't accept that. If that's what you think about your writing, why write? I'm not responsible for you shitting up this thread, now fuck off.
>>182040>I don't accept that.
Lad just keep proving that he lacks self awareness as he continues to "shit up OP's thread" in the very same manner he accuses me of. Possibility reaching peak delusions at this point, well saying delusions is me giving him the benefit of the doubt, in reality I think his brain just lacks all capacity or ability for self reflection at all.
Sounds about where you come from yes.
is the philosopher more important than his ideas?
Ethos has always been a core form of argument. If they don’t convince you with logos or pathos, it’s all that’s left.
When some student asked Schopenhauer about said things, he told signpost doesn't need to fallow the road it points to. Nietzsche was socially deprived if i remember correctly. He was a narcissist, that fucked with his brain, i don't think he really was happy like some other guy stated. Philosophy isn't meant to be "practised". It's not meant to answer anything, it's purpose is to ask questions and learn critical thinking. When it comes to how it affects my mood its more like a hobby. You can dive into one wide topic like the free will of man or maybe meaning of life, what is happiness and what is sadness, some philosophical systems perhaps? After that you just go down the rabbit hole and it helps me pass the time and take my mind off some things. Coming from a philosophy student.
Kind of a case by case thing but if their philosophy is even halfway good then it would be able to stand on it's own.
…isn't this a decent response to the OP?
> he was an impulsive normalfag who caught syphilis in a brothel
that was nietzsche not schopenhauer
schopenhauer hated succubi and never sought them out for sex
he did not hate succubus at all.
Schopenhauer literally tried to court a succubus like twenty years younger than him and got rejected. His whole life was the complete opposite of his philosophy which is probably why Houellebecq loves his work so much
is that a typo or something?
I have never heard of who or whatever that is and it looks like a word misspelled or something.
French author who is discussed a lot on imageboards whose major inspiration is Schopenhauer
I disgus things on imageboards and I have never heard of him.
Me having a bias against most things french I would have remembered such a person in particular since I would make a note to avoid their almost certain to be shit work.
Easy to do so as a fictional caricature of a human being.
8 years ago my grandmother got sick and went to the hospital.
Three days later, I was awakened by my mother sobbing in front of my room's open door. She looked at me and just cried. I got up, hugged her, and asked her what was wrong.
She looked into my eyes and said my grandmother had passed away. My grandmother raised me, while my mother worked. Than, due to circumstances, raised me full time when my
mother decided to move in with her boyfriend when I was 5. My grandmother was my mother; my grandmother was my only reason to live. But in that moment I didn't feel like crying.
In that moment I saw my mother as she truly was. A child. She was a little succubus who had just lost her mommy, and she needed someone with great strength to hold her and tell
her everything was going to be okay.
I was born wrong. As are many, especially now. Most likely due to things in the water and food, etc. But most of the time, people are born normally. Generic. Children. Kind,
docile, nervous, shy, easily impressionable, but not easily deterred. Brave, but scared. I learned a long time ago that adults are just children, and everything else is learned.
Adulthood is a facade. It's only a matter of what it takes to make you cry and scream for mother.
heavy post and good. maybe it is age but I dont see older people as old anymore I just see everyone as that kid whose shell got wrinkled by time but is still the same child inside who has learnt from mistakes made.
[Last 50 Posts]
I'm a grandma's boy, too, although I am much more childish than my mom. She was always focused primarily on work and finance with some light solo recreation. She has had to become more attentive with my siblings who are far younger since granny was out of the picture before they were even born.
I think a sense of maturity past age exists on some level, like how sensitive someone is as you mentioned (maybe how self-sufficient they are as well), but the way it's typically thrown around by norpers is only as an empty brag. In most cases they could just say "I'm good and you're bad" without losing any meaning, but I guess that sounds too childlike. Better dress it up as if some adult concept like logic influenced their jab. The ones that love to call everyone else immature are often the most easily annoyed or upset in my experience.