Explain your philosophy.

[Anonymous No.22958016]

After all the countless books you have read and philosophers you have stalked and all the “isms” you have absorbed.

What is the conclusion you have come to about the world?

[Anonymous No.22958025]

>>22958016
Christ is Lord.

[Anonymous No.22958034]

>>22958025
Fpbp

[Anonymous No.22958039]

>>22958016
I don't really care.

[Anonymous No.22958049]

>>22958016
OP's absorbed some jisms if you know what i mean

[Anonymous No.22958095]

The Getes considered themselves immortal. They believed that the passage to the world from down below, far from lead them to birth or to a condition of suffering, took them to the glorious and celestial abodes of Xalmoxis. This dogma is purely Aryan.

[Anonymous No.22958107]

My conclusion about the world doesn't really come only from books, not at all, but it is that the world is an inherently spiritual experience that is meant to teach you.

Also, I'm coming up with -ism to end all -isms, called: Infinitism.

[Anonymous No.22958577]

Man is a rising beast.

[Anonymous No.22958587]

>>22958016
Keats, Ode to a Grecian Urn.

[Anonymous No.22958599]

>>22958016
don't do too much stuff, or maybe do a lot of stuff

[Anonymous No.22958627]

Nothing matters. Have sex.

[Anonymous No.22958931]

>>22958016
Carl Schmitt and Sigmund Freud must be reconciled to deal with the sex crisis.

[Anonymous No.22958933]

Humans are profoundly limited and never get to know what is really going on. It is possible to construct a nice philosophy or spirituality for how humans should behave given that we do not know why we exist, but it is pie in the sky. Man is more evil than good, because his capacity for deception and deceit are unlimited. Think of ideas as artworks. You mull over them, ponder them, become animated by them, get bored of them and move on to the next painting.

Thinking and reading is to take an aesthetic walk through the halls of mankind's mind. Hope for things to work out but don't expect it to. Be prepared for disaster at any moment, but actually you have to ignore the disasters as much as you can manage... by looking at art. You can he the most depressed man on earth, sick and dying, and if you are on page 357 of a Tolstoy novel it doesn't matter, your mind is in 19th century Russia not a hospital.

If you can read a poem on a crashing airplaine without getting distracted then you have reached the maximum of human possibility.

[Anonymous No.22958937]

>>22958627
Ok lemme just go out and shove my dick into the first woman who comes within ten feet of me without the cops arresting me

[Anonymous No.22958947]

>>22958016
Language is a weapon and the philosopher’s task is to control it rather than being controlled by it.

[Anonymous No.22958948]

>>22958016

[Anonymous No.22958983]

>>22958937
Where did my post suggest rape?

[Anonymous No.22959102]

Theoretical sciences keep describing an account of the world that is so completely removed from what your average humans claim they do and believe in their day to day life and and their phenomenal experience, all I'm left with could only be called scientific idealism

[Anonymous No.22959168]

>>22958983
Because you made the a priori assumption (I’m also assuming you did through an educated guess on my own terms) that sexual intercourse is as easy as breathing or eating for the average man. Now you could be making a reference to females only which I forgive you but if not you’re hopelessly out of touch if you are attempting to make such presumptions.

[Anonymous No.22959180]

>>22958016
Everything exists. I am.

(Daoism, Neoplatonism, Christianity, Hinduism, Kantianism, Hermeticism, Autism)

>>22959168
ngmi

[γρηγορεύω No.22959194]

>>22958016
A=A

[Anonymous No.22959198]

>>22958016
There’s no hope for humanity

[Anonymous No.22959202]

>>22959194
Wasn't this attacked by Wittgenstein?

[γρηγορεύω No.22959212]

>>22959202
Possibly.

"Steuer makes an even more serious error when he disputes Weininger’s use of the law of identity (i.e., A=A), saying that “Wittgenstein negates these principles.” Unfortunately, the only way a person can negate anything is by using the law of identity, making Steuer’s point ridiculously meaningless."

https://www.theabsolute.net/ottow/wreadsw.html

[Anonymous No.22959215]

>>22959180
It’s true though

[Anonymous No.22959216]

>>22958016

Once upon a time some monkeys on a rock got smarter and smarter until they thought there were separate things from the universe around them. Disaster ensued

[Anonymous No.22959235]

>>22958016
True metaphysical knowledge is impossible (Kant), hard determinism is phenomenally true and experienced, Christianity and all of the major world religions seem to be man-made, morality by definition is subjective (to say there is intrinsic value in objects without a subject is meaningless). In terms of how to live, it comes down to aesthetic preference and is arbitrary. The most noble stoic who is 180 IQ and has unreal discipline is not “better” than a lazy fat Cheeto eating slob on any objective level, though subjectively one may be uglier.

Most important lesson is to ignore internet Christcucks who go to church and feel all special and holy with tears brimming their eyes, only to lash out in rage and acerbic pride at every other person they talk to.

[Anonymous No.22959271]

its the jews

[γρηγορεύω No.22959274]

>>22959271
What is "it" and who or what are "the jews"?

[Anonymous No.22959278]

It's all good bro, it's all in your head.

[Anonymous No.22959280]

>>22959235
Morality has to be an objective end in itself in order to be morality, subjective morality isn’t morality anymore than trans rights are human rights

[Anonymous No.22959288]

>>22959274

[Anonymous No.22959290]

>>22959280
Morality is simply a system of valuation. Valuation implies a subject to value, meaning it is subjective. There is no valuation outside of a subject, just as there is no perception outside of a subject. It would be meaningless to say “objective perception” as much as “objective valuation”. I don’t think there ultimately is a right or wrong, and I definitely don’t buy into the whole leftist “everyone is right!” nonsense.

If I am missing something please let me know, I am open to hearing a new argument for “objective” morals that reside outside of any subjective valuations.

[γρηγορεύω No.22959292]

>>22959290
>don’t think there ultimately is a right or wrong,
Is that right?

[Anonymous No.22959311]

>>22959290
Morality is not a system of valuation and a system of valuation cannot be morality, this is the notion that morality is a club to bash your enemies head in. Whether you value morality is subjective, morality itself is not in order to be defined as morality. All you have to say is you don’t care about right and wrong, or that right and wrong does not exist, but morality absolute cannot have anything to do with subjectivity and remain morality.

[Anonymous No.22959326]

>>22958016
Just go with the flow and make the best of things while being yourself

[Anonymous No.22959328]

>>22958016
Christian antinatalist (because drumpf is the antichrist)

[Anonymous No.22959362]

>>22959328
How's reddit?

[Anonymous No.22959389]

>>22958016
I’ve read some in uni. Interesting but overall not something to live by imo. It’s just piling upon piling upon piling some openwork on a very old palimpsest. I’d rather focus on experiencing than labeling. Cunt Phegel Shopandhower Cumus etc all exciting to read solely bc of language gymnastics they perform on every children’s playground of a topic

[Anonymous No.22959448]

>>22959362
I dunno, never posted there.

[Anonymous No.22959484]

>>22958577
I like this.

[Anonymous No.22959505]

>>22959362
The reason I use the "drumpf" meme is because the "t" represents him as a "christ-like" figure or represents him capitalized as having eminence over the cross. I don't even capitalize "satan"

[Anonymous No.22959567]

>>22958016
>What is the conclusion you have come to about the world?
From introspection, we can see that pleasurable emotions are the only directly experiencable good that all other goods are valued in relation to (even asceticism has its own unique pleasure), and since the definition of absolute, unconditional good implies that more of it would be better, the only end that can traverse the is-ought gap is that the conscious experience of pleasure should be maximized. When it comes to how to achieve this, my belief is that we should use self-replicating machines to turn as much of the universe into minds experiencing nothing but pleasure as possible, as such pleasure would be greater in quantity, and through being engineered, be greater in purity than anything pre-existing minds would ever be able to achieve. So the end goal of society's technological advancement should be figuring out how to make these self-replicating pleasure creators, which is both an engineering problem and a philosophical problem in determining what configurations of matter can truly experience pleasure and how to ensure that they do. I therefore advocate that as much of society's resources and efforts as possible are directed towards this end.

[Anonymous No.22959617]

Earth is another planet's Hell. (h/t Aldous Huxley)

[Anonymous No.22959642]

>>22958947
Fuck off wittnigger.

[Anonymous No.22959664]

I used to be into this stuff when I was a young man, but as I get older I no longer have interest in it. I've already got life figured out. Or maybe I just don't care. Either way, all I want now are stories and characters. Anyone else feel the same?

[Anonymous No.22959693]

>>22958016
The theory of evolution unironically explains mostly everything. Even the universe can be thought of as an organism that was selected from multiple universes, randomly having the precise conditions needed to yield life. Everything we do and think is the result of evolution. Our beliefs are merely survival strategies. The belief in objective morality, or free will, or God, all of it is simply something we evolved that gave some sort of advantage, but this does not necessarily mean that these things will always give an advantage. What’s true today may be false tomorrow, and what’s true for you may not be true for me. “Might is right” is just a watered-down version of survival of the fittest. Without any subjective interpretations of what is “right,” all that can be said is that some things survive and others die. However, we value survival, and promise of survival, good health, and happiness. And since we evolved from less intelligent species, it’s natural that we should evolve to be more intelligent, if not create our own evolution through genetic technologies. Every problem, every ounce of suffering, is dependent on the organism that has certain emotions and interpretations in response to an indifferent universe. Nihilism is a disease, a sign that we are not yet evolved. We must go higher, we must make ourselves large. Most importantly we must get rid of the illusion of self, and realize the omnipresence of consciousness. We are all the same consciousness, there is no death, your suffering is my suffering. This universe is a grand play, a world of hell recombining itself to form heaven. Everything is leading up to the perfect creature, the perfect experience, the god that we have been trying to find for so long.

[Anonymous No.22959703]

>>22958016
Shit's gay

[Anonymous No.22959732]

>>22959693
If that's true, I put it to you that Earth is an evolutionary cul-de-sac.

[Anonymous No.22959754]

>>22959693
>This universe is a grand play, a world of hell recombining itself to form heaven. Everything is leading up to the perfect creature, the perfect experience, the god that we have been trying to find for so long.
>>22959567 here, I agree with this, and specifically think that this end state is the universe being reconfigured to be a maximally pleasurable state of "heaven on earth," and that it's via an ever-expanding system of transformative, matter-reconfiguring machines that this will be achieved.

[Anonymous No.22959760]

>>22959732
That could be said in every single era leading up to the present moment. And yet we have continued to go higher. Evolution works on large time scales. We will see if you’re right 100,000 years from now. But I think you’ll be proven wrong in less than a thousand

[Anonymous No.22959766]

>>22958016
Nothing is more to me than myself!

[Anonymous No.22959770]

>>22959760
Only barely higher. Earth did not reattain the level of civilization of the Roman Empire until the mid 19th century. And I'll be surprised if I don't see a planet-wide collapse of civil society before I pass away.

[Anonymous No.22959774]

>>22959754
Obviously a huge problem is ensuring that the “machines” are conscious. But I’m not so sure if quantity is important here. Why does it matter if you have 100 machines compared to 1? If this machine-replicating process speeds up entropy, then you will just be wasting time and resources. It’s better for one mind to experience heaven for 100 trillion years than to have 100 trillion minds to experience heaven for a thousand years.

[Anonymous No.22959794]

>>22959770
It’s only a matter of time until AI and computing advance enough for us to decode the human genome.

[Anonymous No.22959803]

>>22959774
>Obviously a huge problem is ensuring that the “machines” are conscious.
This is why a serious program of cognitive neuroscience to determine what is and isn't able to experience qualia would be necessary. In the worst case scenario, the machines could just construct modified human brains, which we could be close to 100 percent certain experience the desired qualia.
>It's better for one mind to experience heaven for 100 trillion years than to have 100 trillion minds to experience heaven for a thousand years
On what grounds? I would take as the default position simply multiplying the number of minds by the duration of pleasure experienced to get the total pleasure experienced, in which case the latter scenario is preferable.

[Anonymous No.22959808]

They don't think it be like it is, but it do.

[Anonymous No.22959831]

>>22958933
thanks chatgpt

[Anonymous No.22959841]

>>22959831
that is a strange remark
presumably you refer to the
disjointedness of
a jotted bit

[Anonymous No.22959850]

>>22959794
>AI
ROTFLMAO

[Anonymous No.22959854]

>>22959235
> The most noble stoic who is 180 IQ and has unreal discipline is not “better” than a lazy fat Cheeto eating slob on any objective level, though subjectively one may be uglier
Cope the post

[Anonymous No.22959859]

>>22959803
> In the worst case scenario, the machines could just construct modified human brains, which we could be close to 100 percent certain experience the desired qualia.
The future is a mystery. Maybe we perfect our understanding of DNA and how to make the most efficient biological brains, or maybe we transcend DNA and find new ways to make life, who knows.
> in which case the latter scenario is preferable.
preferable to whom? It certainly sounds good, but when you’re talking about engineering minds to have perfect qualia, they don’t care if any other minds are experiencing it as well. And like I said, you should consider the cost of creating all these minds. Surely it cannot be cheap to constantly experience heaven. How does such a mind take in energy? It would need some non-conscious mechanism that acquires energy for it so that it never needs motivation (suffering) to maintain its joy. I’m not sure which way the math favors, one mind or many. Imagine that you’ll “reincarnate“ as each of those minds after you (as a mind machine) die. Then it will just be the same experience. From within each mind configuration there really is no difference. It is practically the same as only having one mind that is always reincarnating in an eternally recurring universe. The one advantage that makes sense is that multiple minds are more likely to survive than one, so there can be a good medium between one mind and trillions of minds

[Anonymous No.22960129]

>>22959202
You cannot refute an axiom unless you are also refuting the entire system of logic it goes on to build.

[Anonymous No.22960142]

>>22959235
There is no such thing as objective level as your first argument about metaphysics implies. The stoic as seen by humans in a society is better and has always been better than the cheeto slob because he induces less suffering than the slob upon those who have to think about him.

[Anonymous No.22960152]

Im an egoist anarchist

simple as

Ideology is a spook

[Anonymous No.22960197]

>>22960152
I’m an egoist fascist

simple as

niggers are spooks

[Anonymous No.22960203]

I haven't read any philosophy
My view is that I am a very emotional person who is mostly driven by emotions
I think that God exists
I am a very angry and intolerant person, I am a sadist but apart from that I have no real views or firmly held beliefs

[Anonymous No.22960299]

>>22958016
We are ecological beings and the subject object split isn't actually a true split

[Anonymous No.22960397]

>>22958016
Might makes right. But not in a cringe edgy way, but in a sad way. Like Hitler said: The truth doesn't matter; only power matters.

[Anonymous No.22960535]

>>22960152
>>22960197
this

[Anonymous No.22960579]

>>22959311
Morality deals with claims of value and human values, so it ultimately is based on valuation. If you believe in objective morals, you are claiming some action or object is valuable regardless of any subject’s individual preferences or valuations, but as I said before this makes no sense to me. So in that sense, I don’t think there is any morality at all aside from ones based on personal valuations. To say these are true or false or that one is right or wrong makes no sense. You could say someone is acting against their interests out of ignorance, but whether or not this is objectively right or wrong is also a meaningless question. So yes, your final statement “morality absolute cannot have anything to do with subjectivity” is something I completely agree with, but there are no objective values only subjective values, so there is no objective morality.

[Anonymous No.22960584]

>>22959854
A real stoic would see they both play their determined roles in the universe and nature.

[Anonymous No.22960587]

>>22960142
Yeah, I said that one is subjectively uglier. I don’t see where we disagree.

[Anonymous No.22960590]

>>22958016

Materialism is correct... but it also ruins the world and your life

[Anonymous No.22960621]

>>22959235
>>22959693
Somehow both correct and both wrong at the same time.

[Anonymous No.22960766]

>>22959290
If it's true for every subject, it pretty much is objective. Consider "suffering is bad". That's pretty much the most obvious moral truth there is. It's not really possible to argue against it without being sophistical about it, yet, suffering is subjective.

[Anonymous No.22960778]

>>22959567
You will never know whether a machine is sentient or not.

[Anonymous No.22960782]

>>22959693
There is no evidence that there are other universes.

[Anonymous No.22960793]

>>22958016
There is more suffering than joy in the world, but if you're of a vigorous and youthful psychological and physical constitution, life is nevertheless worth living and the full spectrum of human emotions is worth experiencing.

[Anonymous No.22961838]

>>22960778
Then as per >>22959803 the machines could just construct human brains modified to be perpetually happy.

[Anonymous No.22962501]

>>22960793
What if you're of a lethargic and decrepit constitution?

[Anonymous No.22962539]

>>22959168
Sex isnt hard to get though. Every one of your direct ancestors did it.

[Anonymous No.22962986]

>>22960142
you're saying there is no such thing as objective level and then proceed to make a claim as if it's an objective truth.

this is nonsense. is this a bot?

[Anonymous No.22962992]

>>22958016
I do what I want

[Anonymous No.22963059]

>>22960766
But people can't come to an agreement about morals.
You start with obvious things but if you continue with trying to build the system you eventually reach a level where things are not so obvious, and real life is at that level.

[Anonymous No.22963133]

>>22960299
> the subject object split isn't actually a true split
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.22963962]

>>22960782
then you haven't been keeping up with quantum physics

[Anonymous No.22964527]

>>22958016
I met a blavk kid named Kev,
He wasnt convinced this white girl liked him. I told him it was true. Cucked him instead by telling him stories abt the girl.

[Anonymous No.22964536]

>>22962986
That's not an objective truth. It's a historical claim, learn the difference.

[Anonymous No.22964546]

>>22960766
Not everyone agrees suffering is bad, or what kind of suffering is bad for that matter, or what bad even means lmao. All we can say is that some kind of suffering is inevitable or even necessary. Making value judgements about human experience never gets you anywhere.

[Anonymous No.22964594]

>>22958016
There is a harmony/force that lies beyond/behind this world that can only be described with words such as magic and divinity. It is the tapping into this harmony/force, all flows from it. Being in disconnect to it can only be described with the words of death, decay, entropy, and chaos.

Whether you see it through Nietzsche as drives and will from nature that possess a spirit of their own. Or you see it through Plato with the outflowing from the One. Or you see it through Christianity with Jesus. Or you see it through...

There seems to be a bit more to reality than what reality lets on, and I can't think of anything gayer than being a pure materialist atheist who rejects what's right in front of them. Also drink fucking water.

[Anonymous No.22964864]

>>22962539
Right, and there were less legal barriers to the act itself in those days. How does disprove anything I said?

[Anonymous No.22964886]

>>22958016

The world is in a constant state of change. Almost nothing is certain beyond our immediate experiences, which are themselves extremely limited. The vast majority of philosophy and religion throughout human history is speculation at best, and cynical lies at worst.

[Anonymous No.22964951]

>>22962501
Then you're in for a bad time

[Anonymous No.22965062]

My conclusion is this.
Look at what's in front of you and tune put the noise.
It might be true cause it's useful to me.

[Anonymous No.22965079]

>>22965062
I'm going to give you an example.
California is full of homeless people.
What is front of you?
Homeless people
What is the noise? Capitalism this communism that.
The homeless people however are a problem. No they do not need a fancy house but they need to be shoved somewhere and be told to stay there at night.

[Anonymous No.22965085]

>>22958016
It's shit, I want to die, and I hate my parents for having born me into a world they and all systems of thought know to be horrid.

[Anonymous No.22965096]

>>22965079
I bet youre fun at parties

[Anonymous No.22965099]

>>22959235
You're a jackass

[Anonymous No.22965103]

>>22959664
I was never really into fiction just read it for school assignments.

[Anonymous No.22965106]

>>22958016
Physicalism combined with determinism is abject death worship.

[Anonymous No.22965112]

>>22959235
How can you know what is better-metaphysical knowledge, and not better if true metaphyical knowledge is impossible? How can you even know that it is impossible?

[Anonymous No.22965191]

>>22964536
> That's not an objective truth. It's a historical claim, learn the difference.
You say that there is no objective truth and you don't specify which truth that is. Truth about what? About anything and everything, right? Then that includes history.
Is this like "haha gotcha I was only pretending to be retarded" moment?

[Anonymous No.22965197]

>>22965191
History isn't about truth lol. It's about claims and perspectives.

[Anonymous No.22965210]

>>22965197
> History isn't about truth lol. It's about claims and perspectives.
In other words, not objective.
It's a matter of cherry-picking the right facts and ignore other facts that go against your fantasy?
But doing that and then admitting that you did that is a useless waste of time: you just created an argument that immediately self-destructs.

[Anonymous No.22965212]

>>22958025
This

[Anonymous No.22965213]

>>22965112
You can only see things from your perspective and you can only guess what would they look like from other perspective.

[Anonymous No.22965223]

>>22965213
And we're not even mentioning that the true objective knowledge is defined as beyond perspectives.

If truth is beyond perspectives and you can only see things from your perspective, then... I think you see where this is going.

[Anonymous No.22965238]

>>22965210
It's not cherry picking facts. Its matching narratives based on records and accounts. Universities and governments cherry pick what narrative they will teach. Any individual is free to believe whatever version suits them. That doesn't make it a waste of time. Facts are scientific not historical.

[Anonymous No.22965245]

>>22965238
I think you're another anon. I was talking about the post (>>22960142) that contradicts itself in such a nonsensical way that I was wondering if it's written by a bot.

[Anonymous No.22965249]

>>22960766
The original anon here, to say suffering is bad at an objective level means nothing. You are making a value judgment, which is subjective. “is bad” or “is good” do not mean anything outside of the realm of personal preferences.

Even if everyone on the planet agreed they don’t like suffering, this wouldn’t suddenly make it switch categories and become objective. You would simply have a large and uniform collection of subjective perspectives. In no way does this make this “objective” or without subject.

[Anonymous No.22966835]

>>22965249
Suffering is objectively bad because negative emotions are the metric with which we regard something's "badness". Its direct subjective unpleasantness is what makes it an objective negative. Positive emotions are objectively good for the same reason. These are the only facts able to traverse the is-ought gap (since objective goodness implies an inherent "ought") and provide an absolute foundation for morality.

[Anonymous No.22967244]

I'm a force a nature. Fish swim, birds fly, grass grows, and brotha, I hurt people.

[Anonymous No.22967261]

That it is what it is, and that anybody who says it is not is a confused retard. Generation, destruction, causation, etc, is all fake and gay. Be who you is, for you can hardly be who you is not.

[Anonymous No.22967431]

>>22958577

[Anonymous No.22967476]

>>22958016
You can sacrifice now or later but you will sacrifice.

[Anonymous No.22967507]

It's over.

The west has fallen.

Billions must die.

[Anonymous No.22968437]

>>22958016
>>22958577
>>22967431
I think ultimately there exists these two worldviews that seem apposed yet have a chance to come together as one, in the same sense as how light is both a particle and a wave of probability. The ultimate issue therefore, like light, is that this leads to a paradox. Light is either or actually is both, but how? Nobody knows - Man is either born from nature or there is some metaphysical aspect to reality, the answer is both, but how?

Even Nietzsche somewhat hints at this not by getting rid of metaphysics, but instead by taking those aspects found in metaphysics and from the "otherworld" and puts them into a natural perspective as being from the body, from nature. Things such as the drives and wills of your consciousness that are spirits of their own. What the hell does that mean? Again, nobody fucking knows.

[Anonymous No.22968449]

>>22958016
Philosophically speaking I adhere to the ideas of Plato and John Locke. But I try to read their philosophies in the light of Christ, therefor my theology (Christian) supercedes and absorbs them all. This is all intellectually speaking, of xourse. Theory is one thing, practice is another.

[Anonymous No.22968452]

>>22958016
>Explain your philosophy
Pay me first. (This is a radical concept for philosophers.)

[Anonymous No.22968455]

>>22959235
Any ugly goblin wrote this post

[Anonymous No.22968457]

>>22958016
Everything that you hate, I believe in.

[Anonymous No.22968732]

>>22968437
>pic title
Read Evola then read Plato again. It works pretty well. Obviously the body is a real factor, but I find conceptualisation of man as "beast" or "animal" increasingly nauseating and degrading.

[Anonymous No.22968748]

>>22968732
While Nietzsche laid the groundwork, I feel that Evola is unironically one of the most underrated "philosophers" in recent history. Everyone just sees the meme evil monocle man, but nobody sees the insane amount of insight he actually brings to the table; probably because most people only see their own projection without actually reading him at all.

[Anonymous No.22968791]

>>22968748
My impression is that most people who like Evola have some intuitive understanding of the spirit behind his work but don't really understand him. From among the critics, the only types of people I've seen are seething tradcaths and materialist bros who - though sometimes based - still have not figured out a way to quantitatively measure their own SOVL and therefore dismiss Evola out of hand.
I know that Evola isn't supposed to be a "philosopher" but as an exponent of a doctrine and a worldview I have also found him to be invaluable. He is the best and most mature thinker that I know of to raise up will, freedom, spirit, objectivity and transcendence as values. His worldview is radically transcendent but there's no emotional and sentimental self-indulgence like with "religious" or "spiritual" currents, there's no coddling, no consolations and no drama. There's just reality, in both its material and spiritual aspects, and then there's man, and then there's man's freedom to Be. It immediately resonated with me. His horizons are broad, and importantly, they include a place for honour, duty, heroism, and all the great virtues, which are certainly nothing so paltry as mere appetite and tools for "propagation of the species".

[Anonymous No.22968883]

>>22958016
Not really a philosophy, but more of a meta-psychology: fear and anxiety, positively asserted, are the well-spring and primary impetus of culture. Certainty resolves many of the pathognomic indications of its presence, and thus the attempt to present a reasonably (probabilitistically) sound heuristic to advance habits of "checks" and "monitoring" about dubious states of affairs form the bedrock from which all philosophy results. Not a hedonistic pursuit, and not even a religious ideal, invigorates man for his achievement, although it often becomes manifest in this manner. I guess you can call me a pragmatist in that way.

[Anonymous No.22969119]

>>22967507
We don't know our fate, reality is weird. Keep trying anon. Keep sticking to your guns, and try to carve out the best little space you can to live in. I share your fears, these are frightening times.

[Anonymous No.22969141]

>>22958016
Less words more action XD.

[Anonymous No.22969147]

>>22958016
Don’t know nothing, don’t care anyway lol

[Anonymous No.22969162]

>>22966835
People who suffer for their money are more likely to keep it than those who get their money from gambling. So suffering is not always unpleasant. Delaying suffering leads to even more suffering, so you can't argue that it's bad when its inevitable.

[Anonymous No.22969335]

>>22958016
>Absolute truth is unable to be grasped by humanity, leaving faith and doubt as our only options
>The world is ever changing
>People must learn as much as they can and seek understanding of self and others in order to become wise
>People must live in solidarity in order to survive
>I am who I am

[Anonymous No.22969391]

>>22958016
Do as you will. Not that you have a choice

[Anonymous No.22970725]

>>22958016
the only conclusion I got is that I dont know shit

[Anonymous No.22971407]

I love humanity, it's spirit, and everything that it encompasses.
>But there is so much evil in the world, and the nature of man brings nothing but suffering!
Don't care still love humanity all it stands for.

[Anonymous No.22971418]

>>22958025
holy based

[Anonymous No.22971603]

>>22970725
Same, whenever I think I'm starting to grasp a concept I realize the hole is a bit deeper, except for morality, that one I know is bollocks (though I can't satisfactorily answer why - error theory? non-cognitivism? emotivism?)

[Anonymous No.22971652]

>>22958016
Aristocratic, monarchist, masculine, traditionalist, heroic, and defiantly reactionary.

[Anonymous No.22971667]

Not through reading : Christ is the truth

Through reading : I love humanity as it is beautiful. I strive for wisdom as it results in a beautiful and fulfilling life ; one way or another

[Anonymous No.22971705]

>>22958016
i have autism

[Anonymous No.22971736]

>>22958016
Information is the language of God (eternal spirit realm) and gaining knowledge is the only worthwhile pursuit in life.

This world is temporary and separate from God (eternal spirit realm) but not less important. Everything that happens in this world is still profoundly meaningful and reverberates through the eternity of this world and God.

Other civilizations on other planets are going through a similar self-complexification process as we are now, evolving and advancing to learn truth, to acquire truth through information.

[Anonymous No.22972230]

>>22970725
That's why discordianism might be the greatest philosophy

[Anonymous No.22972233]

>>22958049
>>22958049
fpbp

[Anonymous No.22972241]

>>22959168
not a priori, and he didn't make that assumption either.

[Anonymous No.22972266]

>>22969162
Suffering towards an end can be valuable, but that's only because that end brings about its own pleasure upon being achieved. Suffering in and of itself is an objective negative, it's merely that something negative can be worthwhile if it brings about a greater positive.

[Anonymous No.22972356]

>>22971407
based beyond belief

[Anonymous No.22972361]

>>22958025
Reddit like

[Anonymous No.22972381]

>>22958025
Reddit like

[Anonymous No.22972393]

>>22959794
The human genome was decoded 30 years ago, slowpoke. I got my whole genome analyzed last summer for 400$

[Anonymous No.22972453]

Life is beautiful and existence is beautiful. There is inherent beauty in the cosmos. The cosmos itself is infinitely beauty, so much that it its existence is a pure necessity, in the way that the cosmos self-substantiated in the infinite past and the infinite future out of pure beauty and mathematical perfection. Things may seem chaotic but there is a perfect order in the chaos, at all levels of abstraction.
The existence of life and concious beings follows from the need of the cosmos to reflect its own beauty, and stems from the fact that an entity capable of self-reflection and higher order thinking (metaphysics) is infinitely beauty itself, and so there isn't a cosmos in which the cosmos is not self-substantiating. The cosmos, its existence itself, is its own god. It is then not unexpected that these truths were among the first ones to be found in recorded history, for they are naturally evident and simple. The philosophies that see beauty in the natural world, in existence, in harmony, in humanity, in the arts and the sciences, in sharing experiences, in seeking wisdom, in admirarion for the past and love for the future, are the ones I'd say are closer to my own.

[Anonymous No.22972476]

>>22958016
My philosophy is bsically just a tl;dr to justify shoplifting

[Anonymous No.22972534]

>>22958016
All of existence is being continously emanated through God's will. God formed all matter into his instruments. We are just helping God play the song he has heard in his head. The song that he simultaneously knows by heart and learns as he plays. As humans our conciousness of our own impending deaths is the most important thing we contribute.

[Anonymous No.22972962]

>>22958016
Existence monism is true. Reality is mental (Idealism). I share the same opinion as another anon ITT regarding the subjective nature of morality (emotivism). Faiths that posit a transcendent OOO-God are outright false given the problem of foreknowledge and the problem of evil. Presentism is false for Parmenidean reasons. So too is the distinction between appearance and reality (noumenon), since all we have to go by is sense-experience, and the Physicalist runs into the problem concerning the reality of consciousness/qualia (although it might be denounced as illusory on a theoretical level, the experience of it is nonetheless undeniable and irreducible to anything else, and it is through experience that any inference concerning reality can be made). Ultimately, the philosophers that most got things right were Parmenides, Spinoza (Della Rocca's interpretation of him), Schopenhauer, FH Bradley, and Michael Della Rocca. Oh yeah meaning holism is true too.

[Anonymous No.22972992]

>>22972962
Solid but
>Faiths that posit a transcendent OOO-God are outright false given the problem of foreknowledge and the problem of evil.
I don't see how tb.h, can you explain, and can you also give your take on free will

[Anonymous No.22973020]

>>22972992
I'm a necessitarian since I admit a strong PSR (Spinoza convinced me). Regarding the problem of foreknowledge, if God is omniscient, then at no point can His knowledge change, nor can it ever be faulty (per immutability following from atemporality). So if every possible outcome is eternally known to God, even prior to their temporal occurrence, then things couldn't be otherwise, for the power to actualize a complete set of outcomes resides in God alone (ie. the initial conditions upon which all other outcomes depend). Thus, the actions of mortals cannot be free since we do not sufficiently ground our actions. Basically, see the grounding objection to molinism for more on this.

[Anonymous No.22973026]

>>22973020
pic related

[Anonymous No.22973091]

>>22972476
>He's so weak that he has to justify his own actions
Waddafag

[Anonymous No.22973153]

>>22958016
First world problems are the best. This is one of the reasons I enjoy Seneca at his silliest. It's one thing to appreciate one's good fortune well enough to abhor a serious fall from it, quite another to enjoy it that much, and with so little harm done.

[Anonymous No.22973269]

>>22972266
>Suffering in and of itself is an objective negative
There's no such thing. By definition, suffering should have an end in sight and if it doesn't, its ou of your control so making value judgements about it is useless. A person who is born without limbs suffers, can they do anything about it, no, then why is it a negative, from whose perspective is it a negative?

[Anonymous No.22973332]

>>22972476
The last time I remember shoplifting it was by accident: A $3 jar of spice that slipped under a sales flyer on the cart. Oh well. Shoplifting on purpose seems like too much work to me: I'd have to clear at least 2K a month for it make a noticeable difference to how I live, and even then it would be hardly worth the time if legally engaged.

[Anonymous No.22973413]

>>22958016
> What is the conclusion you have come to about the world?

[Anonymous No.22973441]

Language is a tool that we don’t understand how to use

[Anonymous No.22973470]

>>22958016

[Anonymous No.22973695]

>>22958016
Kill niggers. Behead niggers. Roundhouse kick a nigger into the concrete. Slam dunk a nigger baby into the trashcan. Crucify filthy blacks. Defecate in a niggers food. Launch niggers into the sun. Stir fry niggers in a wok. Toss niggers into active volcanoes. Urinate into a niggers gas tank. Judo throw niggers into a wood chipper. Twist niggers heads off. Report niggers to the IRS. Karate chop niggers in half. Curb stomp pregnant black niggers. Trap niggers in quicksand. Crush niggers in the trash compactor. Liquefy niggers in a vat of acid. Eat niggers. Dissect niggers. Exterminate niggers in the gas chamber. Stomp nigger skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate niggers in the oven. Lobotomize niggers. Mandatory abortions for niggers. Grind nigger fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown niggers in fried chicken grease. Vaporize niggers with a ray gun. Kick old niggers down the stairs. Feed niggers to alligators. Slice niggers with a katana.