This autist got fucking ripped with one simple trick Find out how!
>try to read philosophy
>it’s gay and dumb
Am I missing something?
It's lost on you.
Don't bother with it. Just go back to your netflixslop.
What’s the point of a story if nobody can understand it
>Am I missing something?
Human nature. Pretending to "get" incomprehensible gibberish makes irrelevant losers feel smart and deep.
Stop staring at the mirror and go read a book.
>Pretending to "get" incomprehensible gibberish makes irrelevant losers feel smart and deep.
You can prove this by trying to find somebody who claims to understand hegel but doesn't make it his whole personality. If somebody had anything better to do then they wouldn't waste their time with this bullshit.
Not really, the only philosophers that mattered were ancient Greek philosophers and even then you vlcan easily get the gist of their outlooks without plowing through a bunch if word salad used to disguise simple concepts as more complex than they actually are like you have to do with most any faggot ramblings made after the French Revolution especially the 19th century ones.
>try to read philosophy
there are hundreds of authors and thousands of years of philosophy. What were you reading?
i suggest reading for these authors for the edgy kids:
- albert caraco
- max stirner
Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Kant, Hegel, Spengler, that’s about it
i hate idealists with burning passion. The worst that ever happened to western civilization.
is a very complicated subject, and it will require an entire essay. So basically, idealism goes against reason, (here you can read Critique of pure reason from Kant if you want to understand the idealist viewpoint, if you can read it because Kant don't know how to write). And idealists hate reality, that's why they are called idealists, because they believe in a ideal, an ideal who needs to be pursued. (the Übermensch on Nietzsche for example). Think of all ideas that comes with idealism: democracy, communism, liberty, human rights, perpetual peace, nationalism, feminism, hope, pacifism, justice, morality etc...
Idealism is a fantasy world, and a fantasy world should stay in the books. Idealism is incompatible with reality, and will only end up in failure.
So what is your philosophy then?
I somewhat agree. Something I greatly disliked reading Nietzsche is how he seems to absolutely despise the idea of living a quiet peaceful life as a farmer, which I can’t understand
I suggest watching this video, it's an introduction to the philosophy of Objectivism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlJD0i_WwdQ
You can ignore the first minutes, start from 3:53. The only reason I'm posting this video is because it gives a pretty quick definition of philosophy and its branches while also being entertaining and motivating. There are surely other good videos too, but I know this one, so yeah. Feel free to fully watch it or not, it lays out some pretty interesting ideas.
There is no set rule of course, but after that I would suggest focusing on ancient Greek philosophy, since it influences much of what comes after.
I'm still learning too btw, recently I've been mostly focusing on logic, axiomatic truth... etc. (for instance I was reading about Kurt Gödel earlier, a quite important logician/mathematician of the 20th century)
Just because you can't understand something doesn't mean it's incomprehensible. Leave the understanding of wisdom to the wizards. Wizards know, warriors kill, merchants sell, workers work. Know yourself and don't stray from your path.
Philosophy is all gay and is just word fluff from pseudo-intellectuals who lack higher wisdow.
This sounds like criticizing mysticism with mysticism
When we transcend, we no longer need false absolutes. Instead, we delight in reality because it is a space of potential. Good and bad are methods we can use to realize that potential; morality is measured by results, not methods or intentions.
tell that to the judge, creep
>>174297 (OP) (OP)
People that can't think for themselves read philosophy so they can pretend they're deep. It's pathetic. Alternatively there's some asshole that's trying to act introverted and curt of whomst uses a philosopher's name name so as to posture just because he already thought that way approximately but is too lazy and or insecure to actually express himself.
Most people see the world in binary categories. They believe that there is either an inherent moral good that we must all obey, or there are no rules and life is pointless anarchy. Nihilism argues for a middle path: we lack inherent order, but are defined by our choices, which means that we must start making smarter choices by understanding the reality in which we live more than the human social reality which we have used to replace it in our minds.
People who think in absolutes can't think for themselves, and that's the great majority of people including yourself
I don't know what you guys definition for philosophy is. I just enjoy Plato's books because it shows you how to argue when you are confronted by people coming up to you with bad faith arguments.
if you want my two uneducated cents, read Evola, well not even Evola, just read about the concept of Manvantara wich he mentions in "Revolt Aganist the Modern World", (can´t remember the chapter right now i think its called "The Cycle of Ages"), its the only thing i can look back and say "yeah i needed to read that"
personally i get the feeling that the vast majority of "ideas" or "ideologies" are psyops created by metaphysical creatures vying for power, there´s so many faggots outhere trying to psyop you into falling in line with their LARP (and maiming or changing your entire personality in the process) its hard not to believe that there are horrible mechanisms at work each pushing for their own agenda as the world races towards Terminal Death, the world is much too chaotic and complex, and the more you look into it, the more chaotic and complex it looks to the point where i staunchly believe the concept of "Truth" is yet another psyop and that the best approach (wich i myself follow) is to assume nothing, and to trust nobody
>how to argue when you are confronted by people coming up to you with bad faith arguments.
how so? everytime that happens they just spin everything you say and appeal to social dynamics, presenting themselves as superior to you and attacking your character, wich in the eyes of the plebeian witnesses is enough because none of them give a single fuck about the subject, but rather use the subject as a means to an end, usually feeling validated and filling the void within (think about the Gnostics and their description of the somatic), the only real way to deal with argument is picrelated, but you can´t do that because most faggots are only smug behind a computer screen or in public places where the cops will protect them
it is as Robert Howard said (i think, i can´t actually remember how the exact quote went), barbarians are more polite than the civilized because they know they can get their shit packed in for fucking around wheras the "civilized" pleb will be smug and whiny because it knows it is protected by the laws other miserable creatures like it made
Well, assuming a minimal level of discourse where name calling doesn't occur (and if it does, it would reflect poorly on the one doing it), the way Socrates is shown to do it consists in politely asking for the other party to more accurately describe their statement, claiming that the terms used are ambiguous (ambiguity being the most common tool of charlatans).
In doing so, the other party is forced to either shed light upon its own words, thus making its contradiction born of bad faith evident; or to abandon the conversation and resort to name calling.
In short, it shows that he who claims (either in favor or against something) is at the mercy of he who questions him. But in regular discourse, most people seem to resort to making a counter-claim, thus giving up the advantage granted by questioning.
Gorgias is one the best example of this.
People who give an inch have a mile stolen from them. In other words you clearly want to be manipulated.
It's actually the exact opposite. People who believe in absolutes are the most easily manipulated people. You're predictable and easily put under control if the right buttons are pushed
I'm probably being 'manipulated' into giving you (You)s but
<His mind cannot be changed! Now I can manipulate him!
Said no one ever. I shall create an example:
>be in court
>victim knows he hates x guy and says 'guilty'
>lawyer makes him think differently
A big fuck you for not realizing that shit. Don't give an inch or those who want to harm you will always win. In a childish way you can 'manipulate' someone into talking but when it comes to having a healthy ego you should never admit to anyone ever that they might be right because they are never going to likely be in your favor but instead their own. That is the nature of power. Even if you're wrong you instinctively never admit it to protect your ego and also your own interests as it's truly foolish to expect someone to take care of you. Why would they? Why would that be in their best interest?
>one hand washing the other
Only fools think equality exists. It is far more likely the hand is trying to strangle you for your wallet after lulling you into a false security. Being predictable is fine as long as you were fine as you were. Assuming you will be better later is when bridges get sold to you. I could talk until I'm blue in the face about it and you'd still bitch about this though. I may or may not post again in this thread. Depends on how hard/soft my dick gets, you bitch enabler (and by bitch I mean someone that takes shit off of someone and or other people of whom stereotypical does their chores. Someone inflexible is not a good bitch). Seriously don't know how you could not get this.
Yes, that is a true statement. I never implied that by manipulating him, his belief will change just that it is easier to manipulate him. People during the crusades mercylessly hunted down "heretics" while thinking in absolutes (that their interpretation of the bible was the correct one, and that all others were wrong). And what it led to was division amongst the so-called "monothiestic" religion known as "christianity". The jews benefited immensely from this both financially and socially.
I redid my post several times.
not the same anon, but fanaticism can be easily capitalized by playing on feelings, think about how operation GLADIO used many fascists and right-wingers by selling the myth of anti-communism, or psyops like Tarrant, football hooligans in Europe etc... where a few bad actors making a flaunty display ("at least they are doing something unlike you anon!" and other disingenuous talk like that) can motivate genuine members into doing something stupid and getting themselves in jail or killed
just something to think about
>if you're wrong you instinctively never admit it to protect your ego
you admit that you are wrong because otherwise that would be a lie, and i don´t like being a liar personally so that wouldn´t work for me, even if sometimes i have to, you avoid having to tell lies by not associating with psychopaths (IE:everyone), the best way to heal from damage, is not being damaged in the first place, you shouldn´t be interacting with "people" in the first place, trust nobody, assume nothing, and if you really care about something, hide it, deep, where nobody can find it
Its mostly useless. Go make some money
>don't like being a liar
>avoid everyone so you do not have to lie
You have chosen the omega option whereas I was trying to sound alpha.
I don’t like Stirner because Anarchist scum simp for him so much
i avoid everyone else because it is logistically impossible to kill the 2.something billion wastes of oxigen, talking to "people" is a waste of time, genocide is not feasable for logistical reasons (i don´t have enough bullets or a weapon, and even if i did say that i shot up a building, someone is bound to be able to escape since i am only one guy and can only cover so much terrain, i would need clairvoyance and some form of teleportation to kill every single faggot in existance, and we haven´t even talked about the skills required to flatline every mook in existance), there are only two real ways of dealing with a problem, either you confront it and solve it, or sidestep it, everything inbetween is just compromise that will bite you in the ass and end up bringing the worse of both worlds into it
Addenda:8.1 billion, i don´t know why the fuck i said 2.something
makes sense, because stirner was an anarchist.
I am a midwit at best so things like metaphysics goes over my head. For the most part, I just like reading philosophies that go more into living the good life. Recently I've read a bit of Sartre. I do like his views on Freedom, responsibility, and existence before essence.
I reluctantly see Stirner as an anarchist tbh. If his ideology is essentially "might makes right", then it also allows for rulers, and it follows that statism is also allowed in such a model. A good, non-contradictory theory of property is absolutely necessary to meaningfully discuss anarchism.
> If his ideology is essentially "might makes right"
Stirner's ideology, at least so far as I've read, is nothing more complicated than "memes aren't real."
corps take precedence and make laws that ban that too
not very well anymore due to the dollar value dropping and the nature of competition making getting a job near impossible, that's slavery
>wizards are wize
until disagreed with, and if no one thinks like the wise man he becomes pointless if not a king, and kings are banned too
I’m not sure what you are talking about, Max Stirner’s philosophy is basically “do what you want faggot”. It’s Nietzsche who says might is right, and that it’s perfectly okay for a ruler to subjugate and oppress his people.
Both of them hate retarded followers but Christ Nietzsche really does breed special kinds of regards to follow him, they are only a slight step above people who get drifted into Andrew Tate
>until disagreed with, and if no one thinks like the wise man he becomes pointless if not a king
"The sky is green and the grass is blue." With that statement, I have just nullified the wisdom, common sense, and truth of billions of people. They are all unwise fools and I am the only wise man. Do you see what I am saying?
In other words, mere disagreement does not nullify truth or wisdom. Only a better understanding of the truth does.
>It’s Nietzsche who says might is right, and that it’s perfectly okay for a ruler to subjugate and oppress his people.
But that's wrong, faggot. His philosophy is more "go out and live by your own laws" than "might is right".
But you very well may be color blind and people very well may not see at all the way another does. It's why you cannot surgically combine brain parts. They are not compatible ergo you do not literally see nor feel nor think as another man does. It'd be wise to realize that that is why people will never be able to truly get along, they do not see the same way. This creates incompatible personality types, incompatible rules/law/ethics/etc due to such diverging genetics as we are all simply mutating. So we go to war and whoever is best survives, their law wins not due to wisdom but due to what they call luck.
Different logic cancels other logic types out.