/lit/ - Literature

>>13860080
I'm off, but thanks for the reply. I apologize for the tardiness, it always seems futile when people lack the capacity to read an argument and reply appropriately. It's always decent for somebody to actually reply to something I said. Most people just say "TLDR" or otherwise call me a nigger or some other name, a 14 year old, whatever.

You can find me on leddit if you want, not that I go there much any more. the 3k character count here is frustrating, and beyond that, the lack of email style, reply at any time is not particularly useful.

Still, this place you can be a lot more vicious and mean than on reddit, and I tend to be incredibly critical. I can do pleasant respectful talking just fine, but I still enjoy vicious, scathing, vulgar criticism.

People don't want to think I'm a real philosopher because I don't put on airs. Honestly. It should be clear. Think of school, think a pretentious douchebag kid, a know-it-all, a smart ass nerd looking kid, thinks he's smart, always has some smart ass comments about how he knows shit. That's philosophy, smart-ass kids who became pretentious adults.

Then there's me. I'm a genuine asshole. I'm a bit like a verbally abusive wife. I will do my damndest to accurately and viciously criticize you. When I want to condemn you, clearly I want to condemn you for your actual faults, your actual shortcomings, your actual failures. I want my verbal abuse to hurt you, to make you feel like shit, to piss you off. I'm not trying to be your friend, I'm not trying to make you happy, to give you pleasant thoughts.

Why would you trust the smart-ass kid trying to be a sycophant to tell you the truth? He wants you to like what he says, because when you like him, you stroke his ego, that's the thing he wants most.

Look at me, a genuine asshole, who has no interest in making you happy, but interest in providing the most valid, scathing criticisms possible. Logically, which of these two people can be more trusted to tell you the truth? Anyone trying to sugarcoat shit, trying to be agreeable, trying to be popular, is gauranteed to be adulterating facts in order to make them marketable, so to speak, to provide you with things you want to hear so you will in turn consume more of what they want to tell you.

Even the original philosophers, they were comparably as driven by public support and approval of their opinions as they were by telling you the truth. The knew they would have no audience, get no respect. Beyond that, I have a decent context of scientific common knowledge in the 21st century, and I operate on objecitve surface level analysis, devoid of any sort of subjective, imaginary prescribed meaning or significance. The verbal abuse of assholes is going to be far closer to validity, to science, to correctness than the sycophantry of smart-ass egotists.

Seeking out agreeable, interesting, or otherwise emotionally harmonious philosophies is futile, because this is hallucinatory adulteration of reality.