When did you finally realize that philosophy was bullshit?

For me, it was when I got to solipsism. I am NOT alone. Other minds and conscious beings definitively exist. That's just how it is.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i think solipsism is more a psychological observation than a philosophical one. it's a classification for a mind which is unresponsive to otherness. "on tracks" or whatever, you know, like a train

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      ironically, people who are unaware of the concept of solipsism, are often the most solipsistic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Buddhists love psychology, because it isn't a real science and isn't actually useful for anything. It is the perfect compliment to their religious persuasions. All Buddhism really has at the end of the day is an aggressively honed sense of smug.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly it doesn't matter because my next world will be a solipsist dream bro. Can't wait

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    i disagree with your quote, too. philosophy is all semantics, that i agree with, but the point of philosophy is not to be or prove correct but to relate, and to beautify your human perspective. it's a way of connection

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I HOPE SOLIPSISM ISNT TRUE. IF SOLIPSISM IS TRUE IM GOING TO KILL MYSELF. AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY WILL EVER ANSWER MY QUESTION HONESTLY HAS ME LEANING TOWARDS IT BEING TRUE. AM I REALLY REALLY ALL ALONE? THERE'S JUST ONE BEING IN EXISTENCE? WHAT THE FRICK

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        bruh

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i think about this from time to time because i have delusions of grandeur and i'm just like. well, if that's true then reality is a simulation. precisely because it has presented itself to me as random up until it wasn't random. so what would be funnier to me (than being God, or whatever) if it was a simulation, rather than overhauling/software updating/being autistic would be if i were secretly a hero and no one knew so it's like an rpg and i'm just out doing the best i can without acting on metagame knowledge. like just wrecking shit out in reality with my colossally huge dick and nothing else. and if people want to talk about my huge dick, or whatever, you know, that's up to them but they're not gonna stop me slangin that thang

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I also suffer from delusions of grandeur. It is good to hear that you recognize that they are delusions. It took me quite some time to reach the same recognition about myself. Isn't it funny how the delusions remain, even after we recognize them as such? What do you make of that?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I cope with this by imagining some sort of anthropomorphic creator deity that is a solipsist.
        A sky daddy, if you will. What lies beyond the sky daddy’s body is beyond the comprehension of my human brain. My life is one perspective of many within god’s seemingly limitless imagination.
        If I were a materialist I would be a solipsist who exists in a world populated by other solipsists.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        you can disprove solipsism by understanding what the trinity actually means as a metaphor for the structure of the human mind. There are already 3 yous that exist within your body, so based on that number alone, solipsism is false. Easy. Those 3 yous are the Ego, The unconscious anima/animus and the higher self. So even if all external beings are "fake" as per the solipsistic belief, you are still trinary. Defeating the main conceit of it. Sure this is a technicality workaround, but the best kind of correct is technically correct.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          It's wrong, and it's not even technically wrong. Why? Because it's all one brain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you can't even prove that the brain exists, you could be dreaming the whole time

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >I HOPE SOLIPSISM ISNT TRUE.
        me too, I'd hate it if you and everyone else were just in my imagination
        >IF SOLIPSISM IS TRUE IM GOING TO KILL MYSELF.
        if solipsism is true you don't exist, only I exist
        >AND THE FACT THAT NOBODY WILL EVER ANSWER MY QUESTION HONESTLY HAS ME LEANING TOWARDS IT BEING TRUE.
        "nobody"? you mean me because I'm the only one who exists
        >AM I REALLY REALLY ALL ALONE?
        no, you're with all of the other people who only exist in my mind

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This, except it's me and not you. This whole thread and all of it's replies just appeared to me when I came to /x/. What are the odds unless I'm the only real person here?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Solipsism is true of God, but not of individuals humans. Lots of humans/animals/things, but only one God, and all of them are within Him.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          This guy knows.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again - nonsense if you actually accepted solipsism.
            yes. and?
            >Your actions prove you dont accept what you are asserting.
            or maybe I use language as a tool to interact with the illusions?
            >Anyone who truly does hits a dead end.
            if they are moronic

            >Because they dont believe what they are saying.
            arrogant shitlord, you are. typical

            Reality is life. The physical world, where things happen. That's all there is to it. Anything else is a fantasy. You can either see this- life- as important- or you don't, at which point there's no point in caring about anything at all and you should just do your best to go Nirvana by following Buddhism or whatever.

            Can you prove that you aren't dreaming?

            “Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Here's Tom with the weather.”

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      i.e. in the context of the quote in OP, it's talk on a cereal box, to YOU. but isn't the rejection or dismissal of philosophy just... more philosophy? hedonism is a school of thought so is nihilism

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      it also allows you an awareness of the mechanics of semantics, and in that allows you a sort of immunity there otherwise somnambulant affects.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      no, the point of philosophy is to be correct.

      >ayn rand
      >benito mussolini, giovanni gentile
      >utilitarian hedonism
      >italian futurism

      frick subjectivism, things are only how they are and aren't how they're not.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No the point of philosophy is to find Truth. which is not the same as being "correct" there are lies which can be applied correctly in the world. Truth and Correctness are synonyms but not conceptually identical.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          you're a fricking moron. only the truth is correct.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          wait are you talking about logic?

          you're a fricking moron. only the truth is correct.

          things can be correct without being true, but this is more like math and logic than philosophy. most people have no clue about philosophy of logic, but computer programmers are really good at it! there's definitely something fricky happening in academia, where for example in my uni the 'formal logic' course which has a prerequisite of critical thinking (which is all hidden away in social science philosophy departments) yet the math course discrete mathematics is an antirequisite to formal logic (and it has no prerequisite of its own, it's taught first year to comp sci and math majors it's fricked up and brainwashes everyone)

          anyways things can be correct if they are conclusions from unverified premises.
          only if the premises are true does the conclusion become true

          the point of logic is finding premises that are true, and reaching conclusions that have to be true, because of the correct logical structure of the inference being made and such
          yea the syntax and semantics are all fricked up too I HATE IT
          it's possibly overcomplicated and kept obfuscated on purpose to keep normies brainwashed and moronic, idk maybe israelites lol

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy can literally lead to the highest mystical attainment possible

  5. 1 month ago
    AIR_WEAPONS_CONTROLLER

    did you just read the first couple chapters of sophie's choice? did a twelve year old write this? is my own drug use making everyone else dumber?

  6. 1 month ago
    AIR_WEAPONS_CONTROLLER

    please read Spinoza

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. Read the system builders
      Plato
      Aristotle
      Spinoza
      Kant
      Hegel
      Including Heidegger for the only other valid approach to philosophy
      Tbh you can short cut all of this and just read Plato and Heidegger and be completely fine

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >ideas are inadequate, humans driven by fears and desires cause suffering
      >totally not buddhism trust me bro
      Many such cases: Schopenhauer, Aurelius, Ecclesiastes

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality. Much of so-called "philosophy" is just concerned with pointless metaphysical systems and other useless shit. It's not really philosophy, just mental masturbation. And when you divide the applicable philosophies from the pointless ones, you still have to figure out just which one is actually practical or idiotic. Some philosophies will give you a way of life which actually works, others will give you something that will end up ruining your life if you care to follow it.

    Of course, this only really applies if you actually care about the world, if you want to be in it and do things in it, if you think it really matters and is not just some worthless illusion that causes nothing but suffering to those who cling to it. If you do, I recommend Buddhism. Of all the philosophies and religions that try to escape from reality and the suffering inherent in it, it is by the far the most effective- it just works.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >If you do
      If you don't, I meant.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Not all philosophy is supposed to be utilitarian

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what the frick is its use if it has no use

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >this only really applies if
      This is determined through all the philosophies you dismissed as bullshit. They are how you determine "reality" and "applicable" and "practical".
      You dismiss them because you are unable to or refuse to think on these underlying assumptions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        No they don't. Lol. They can never make up a single logical reason for that. They also certainly don't determine what is "reality" or whatever. They just make up fantasies that are obviously not real and they just cooked up in their own heads and that fall apart once you try to fit them in reality.
        "Oh let me dabble with some abstract thought disconnected from reality and content with its own narrative bubble on human life aaand oh dear god why isn’t it working, it was so perfect on paper where has it all gone so wrong! People must have done it wrong! Of course! If only society was full of people like ME!"
        Like that. Of course, some of them are even further disconnected from reality than that, to the point where they don't even actually try to apply it to anything (since there's nothing to apply) and they just talk about these non-existent metaphysics endlessly for hundreds of pages for no reason.
        Philosophers and their children – ideologues –are all so concerned with their limited models of the world that they miss how far they’ve trailed away from reality. Even a child can observe the world around itself without guidance and gain better knowledge of it than philosophers with their abstract formulas.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          There is only one universal mind. I would argue a shared mind/hivemind, effectively makes God/the universe all alone in its very nature. That's just how it goes.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why are you replying to me?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >They also certainly don't determine what is "reality" or whatever.
          Oh? Who did then? You? What is it?
          >how far they’ve trailed away from reality
          How do you know? You havent said what reality is, or who determined it to be so.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >They also certainly don't determine what is "reality" or whatever.
            >how far they’ve trailed away from reality
            he gave the standard
            >make up a single logical reason for that
            do you have anything that meets this standard?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he gave the standard
            He didnt. He has used "reality" multiple times without ever defining it or proving why that definition is valid.
            >do you have anything that meets this standard?
            A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?
            The reason is because you want to use the label, so it's meaning and validity should be agreed upon, otherwise no communication or discussion can be had.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?
            yes

            Can you do it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The reason is because you want to use the label, so it's meaning and validity should be agreed upon, otherwise no communication or discussion can be had.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            label? is every word in the dictionary a label now? i guess we should just stop using words and go back to grunts

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > is every word in the dictionary a label now?
            Yes. And they are in there because they have definitions.
            What is meant by "reality" or "life" or "physical world" is important if you want to keep using the terms. Especially if you are questioning the validity of what is meant by the terms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >What is meant by "reality" or "life" or "physical world" is important if you want to keep using the terms.
            yes, and?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And that is the reason. Are you the same anon as

            I accept that you understand solipsism to mean that others don't exist.
            This is a valid premise and many conclusions can be made.

            So either you are agreeing with me, or you don't have a point. That's what it means

            >well I think xyz!
            >>yes and?
            meaning that, just bexause xyz is true, it doesn't mean anything. as in you don't have any point

            need any more lessons in the english language you fricking moron?
            [...]
            yup

            that you think such a response has any merit?
            "Yes and" means you have accepted what I just said. It's not on me to get you to think on what that acceptance entails.
            You asked for a reason, I gave you one you accepted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You asked for a reason, I gave you one you accepted.
            you did not meet the requirement
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

            you even said this yourself
            >What is meant by "reality" or "life" or "physical world" is important if you want to keep using the terms.
            which means you agree with me.

            When are you going to establish the semantics of these terms and meet the requirement? here it is again
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The logical reason to define the terms is because you want to use them.
            You already agreed with this.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But I don't want to use them? I simply presented a standard and you failed to meet the standard.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you dont use then, then your argument disappears.
            You cant say anyone can understand reality without a conception of reality.
            Or you CAN, but you sound incredibly stupid and thoughtless.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You cant say anyone can understand reality without a conception of reality.
            that's not my argument, my argument is that you (and western philosophy in general) fail to meet the requirement

            here it is again
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality"
            That was given.
            Because you said
            >You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            You must be able to define reality and defend its validity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            that wasn't me first of all, but it's okay
            what's not okay is your misconception or misrepresentation of what was being said

            any theory in philosophy that uses the word reality needs to define the word beforehand. that's the requirement. here it is again!
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >that wasn't me first of all
            That is the point I disagreed with that you have been defending. I dont care who first said it. Either you agree in which case nothing changes, or you dont in which case you have been arguing against someone you dont disagree with.

            >any theory in philosophy that uses the word reality needs to define the word beforehand
            And that is what the realms of philosophy that were dismissed are meant to do. That is my point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And that is what the realms of philosophy that were dismissed are meant to do. That is my point.
            okay? so give a single example that meets the requirement? here it is again
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality"
            Because you said
            >You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            You must be able to define reality and defend its validity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            wtf are you talking about?

            earlier
            >And that is what the realms of philosophy that were dismissed are meant to do. That is my point.

            So the realms of philosophy (that were dismissed) (that uses the word reality) are meant to define the word beforehand, by providing a logical reason for having said definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition.

            Then give a single example that does this successfully.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The realms that were dismissed are those concerned with determining what is meant by "reality" and how to asses the validity of such definitions.
            They were dismissed by saying
            >You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            But that assertion itself is assuming what reality means, and assuming that concept of reality is valid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            okay let's pretend I am dismissing it in a different way

            So the theories of philosophy that uses the word reality, are meant to define the word beforehand, by providing a logical reason for having said definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition.

            Give a single example that does this successfully?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So the theories of philosophy that uses the word reality
            Yours.
            >are meant to define the word beforehand
            No. All philosophy deals with reality at some point. Certain types of philosophical thought deals with defining reality and the validity of those definitions.
            It is those philosophies that were dismissed.
            >Give a single example that does this successfully?
            Define "successful".
            Does YOUR philosophy do this? YOUR philosophy uses and relies on the term.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            are you on crack?
            >Certain types of philosophical thought deals with defining reality and the validity of those definitions.
            >It is those philosophies that were dismissed.
            sure. so do any of these philosophies meet the requirement?

            here is the requirement again
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so do any of these philosophies meet the requirement?
            Define the requirement.
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?
            Thinking about this IS the philosophies you are trying to dismiss.
            And you didnt answer
            >Define "successful".
            >Does YOUR philosophy do this? YOUR philosophy uses and relies on the term.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            speak english
            >Thinking about this IS the philosophies you are trying to dismiss.
            incoherent

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not certain how I can dumb this down further so you can understand it.
            The question you are asking - what is the reason for defining reality and how do you do it? - is what this realm of philosophy you are trying to dismiss does.
            If you want the question answered - you engage with those philosophies.
            You cant escape engaging with this level, as other anon said.
            There is no neutrality on metaphysics.
            There is only ignorance of how you built your position, and getting upset that you are forced to think about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what is the reason for defining reality and how do you do it?
            I never asked that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Correct. You have an assumptive understanding and it has been upsetting you to ask the question.
            You SHOULD ask that, because you use the term and you have never questioned that use.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You SHOULD ask that, because you use the term and you have never questioned that use.
            no you are just moronic. don't twist my words. I never used the term either, except to indicate the lack of verifiable definition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I never used the term either
            Lie, or dishonest. this is the claim that I have been arguing against - whether you typed it or not, you are defending it.
            >You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            Because you want to use the term reality, you must define it and defend the validity of your definition.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Well if you think I am lying and I say I am not, then you should stop responding to me lol. What's the point of arguing when you are just going to be an arrogant shitlord? The wise thing to do is disregard what was said previously and focus on what was most recently said. Or you can pointlessly argue with sophistry. Go ahead, destroy this thread idc
            >Because you want to use the term reality, you must define it and defend the validity of your definition.
            But I don't want to use the term reality?
            I am criticizing philosophies that use the term.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But I don't want to use the term reality?
            Then your entire argument disappears.
            You DID use the term.
            >I am criticizing philosophies that use the term.
            Yours does. They all do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You DID use the term.
            No, did you misread?
            >>I am criticizing philosophies that use the term.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            this is the claim that I have been arguing against - whether you typed it or not, you are defending it.
            >You can judge whether a philosophy is worthwhile or not by its applicability to reality.
            Because you want to use the term reality, you must define it and defend the validity of your definition.
            It doesnt matter that you are criticizing them - you are using their knowledge and relying on them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            well if you weren't moronic you would see the main point is that western philosophy is fake n gay

            So the theories of philosophy that uses the word reality, are meant to define the word beforehand, by providing a logical reason for having said definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition.

            Give a single example of anything in western philosophy that meets the requirement?
            Here it is again
            >A logical reason for having a definition for the term "reality" and a way to asses the validity of that definition?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reality is life. The physical world, where things happen. That's all there is to it. Anything else is a fantasy. You can either see this- life- as important- or you don't, at which point there's no point in caring about anything at all and you should just do your best to go Nirvana by following Buddhism or whatever.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can you prove that you aren't dreaming?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Reality is life.
            Good job switching labels. What is life?
            >The physical world,
            I've never been in a physical world, where is this? The world I exist in is of ideals, where I get info about some notion of physical things.
            >where things happen.
            Things happen? When? How?
            What things?
            You dismiss these questions because you wont or cant think upon them.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/kM9va74.jpg

      For me, it was when I got to solipsism. I am NOT alone. Other minds and conscious beings definitively exist. That's just how it is.

      i disagree with your quote, too. philosophy is all semantics, that i agree with, but the point of philosophy is not to be or prove correct but to relate, and to beautify your human perspective. it's a way of connection

      all you have to do is be logical and you will find the truth. it's that simple

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Okay, well I do know the truth. I know I live in a simulation. And I know a simulation implies that there is only one conscious mind/being. So I'm all alone. And solipsism is true. Frick.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When did you finally realize that philosophy was bullshit?

    when i was sitting around all day contemplating the meaning of existence instead of living live.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What does living life entail?
      Why does sitting around contemplating the meaning of it all not constitute living life in your opinion?
      Does posting on EerieWeb count as living life?
      Pull yourself together man!

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    yeah mate completed philosophy back in 2017 im on architecture now

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It’s kinda gay how we have these moronic buzz words like solipsism that people can drop to sound smart but then actually nobody knows if we are even talking about the same thing because it can mean 100 different things.
    That’s a nice song, but it’s philosophical in nature.
    >I am what I am
    And what is that pretty singing lady?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It has a fairly specific meaning. Maybe some people are using it incorrectly.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    A particular strain of thought can be false without all of philosophy being bullshit.

    All systems break down if they are sufficiently developed, but that doesn't mean they can't describe or relate to something real. That said, not all systems are externally true. Those systems are just bullshit exercises in "what if?" logic. A lot of modern philosophy is this.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point, however, is to change it.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >got filtered at the very start of modern philosophy
    pleb

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Calling philosophy stupid because you don't like solipsism is like calling science stupid because you don't like some specific theory related to astrophysics or some shit. In other words: you're a fricking moron
    >Other minds and conscious beings definitively exist. That's just how it is.
    This literally can't be proven. For all I know I'm dreaming right now and none of this is real, none of my memories are real, my entire life and everyone in it has been a dream. I can never know for sure.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >philosophy was bullshit
    >solipsism is a philosophy
    lolwut.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its bullshit because you dont make your own philosophy. you just listen to old dead gays

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When philosophers started to remove God from the study

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For me, it was when I got to solipsism. I am NOT alone. Other minds and conscious beings definitively exist.
    bruh, you're a mistaken about le philosophy.
    solipsism is A philosophy, not THE pholosphy.
    For example, Cartesian philosophy says minds and conscious beings exist. If you don't like solipsism, you can believe in that philosophy. or even believe in some parts but not another. many others did.
    It means you instead follow the pholosophy of anti-solipsism.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Deducing for yourself is bullshit
    >Subscribing to someone else's thoughts is the way to go.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >For me, it was when I got to solipsism.
    Solipsism is MEANT to be a philosophical dead end.
    If your thoughts conclude at solipsism, you've taken a wrong turn.
    If your framework cannot explain reality better than solipsism, you have a weak framework.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Solipsism is MEANT to be a philosophical dead end.
      only because westerners are moronic.
      it's actually only the beginning

      and all other turns are actually wrong because they are less logical

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you go "beyond" solipsism, then it is not your conclusion, idiot.
        >If your thoughts conclude at solipsism, you've taken a wrong turn.
        >If your framework cannot explain reality better than solipsism, you have a weak framework.
        If you are saying "solipsism is just the beginning", then it is neither your conclusion nor better than your framework.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >>If your thoughts conclude at solipsism, you've taken a wrong turn.
          But solipsism is not a wrong turn. It is correct, and the truth only expands from there, and can conclude back to solipsism at any time because it is the foundational truth.

          Okay, well I do know the truth. I know I live in a simulation. And I know a simulation implies that there is only one conscious mind/being. So I'm all alone. And solipsism is true. Frick.

          Can you prove it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can I prove I live in a simulation? I mean, yeah. With stuff like the double slit experiment. Everything is energy, and apparently I'm all of the energy. The totality of being is me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wish we had more to go on. I love the double-slit, it's obvious substantial evidence of some sort, but I feel it doesn't prove any specific theory on its own up to the degree of being meaningful for truth-seekers. I pray we find more.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I wish we had more to go on. I love the double-slit, it's obvious substantial evidence of some sort, but I feel it doesn't prove any specific theory on its own up to the degree of being meaningful for truth-seekers. I pray we find more.

            Quantum mechanics is indeterministic and that is all you need to explore past the limits of science into esotericism (if you can be logical about it)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But solipsism is not a wrong turn.
            I didnt say that. You have bad reading comprehension.
            >the truth only expands from there
            So - once again for the slow of thought - you havent CONCLUDED, and thus you have not taken a wrong turn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Now we are just arguing semantics..

            solipsism is a valid conclusion from any truthful perspective.
            You say
            >>If your thoughts conclude at solipsism, you've taken a wrong turn.
            But you are wrong.
            If your perspective doesn't have a conclusion of solipsism then that is the wrong turn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >solipsism is a valid conclusion from any truthful perspective.
            No, it is a dead end.
            >If your perspective doesn't have a conclusion of solipsism then that is the wrong turn.
            This statement is complete nonsense if you accept solipsism.
            That is WHY it is a dead end.
            There is nowhere to go, nothing to discuss with this conclusion.
            You think there is because you unconcsciously reject the conclusion but refused to give up the label.
            That is why you turn to pseudo-solipsism like "from your perspective". Same reason Monists can never talk or explain things from an undifferentiated POV.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >No, it is a dead end.
            >This statement is complete nonsense if you accept solipsism.
            no u are just moronic

            >There is nowhere to go, nothing to discuss with this conclusion.
            wrong, try to be logical
            >You think there is because you unconcsciously reject the conclusion but refused to give up the label.
            >That is why you turn to pseudo-solipsism like "from your perspective".
            no. it's a perfectly valid premise and many conclusions can be reached from it

            >Same reason Monists can never talk or explain things from an undifferentiated POV.
            more moronation

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >u are
            Nonexistant if you truly accept solipsism, which is why it is a dead end.
            > it's a perfectly valid premise and many conclusions can be reached from it
            Incorrect. It is a conclusion that stops all inquiry if truly accepted.
            Which is why people that say they do are lying to themselves.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Nonexistant if you truly accept solipsism
            yes
            >which is why it is a dead end.
            nope
            >Incorrect. It is a conclusion that stops all inquiry if truly accepted.
            only for morons
            >Which is why people that say they do are lying to themselves.
            only you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >only you
            Again - nonsense if you actually accepted solipsism.
            Your actions prove you dont accept what you are asserting.
            Anyone who truly does hits a dead end.

            Why are you replying to me?

            Because they dont believe what they are saying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again - nonsense if you actually accepted solipsism.
            yes. and?
            >Your actions prove you dont accept what you are asserting.
            or maybe I use language as a tool to interact with the illusions?
            >Anyone who truly does hits a dead end.
            if they are moronic

            >Because they dont believe what they are saying.
            arrogant shitlord, you are. typical

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >yes. and?
            And nothing. Glad I could get you to understand that point, and by doing so prove how much of a dead end solipsism is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you ESL or something? That means you are the one who doesn't have any point. Especially evident that you ignored my points. Complete failure to provide a rebuttal let alone a refutation, when I thoroughly refuted everything you said. Try again, or don't because you will never stand by any claim you made so don't even waste time if you won't.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You just agreed to the point.
            >Again - nonsense if you actually accepted solipsism.
            >yes. and?
            That "yes" is you accepting my point. I dont need to go any further.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I accept that you understand solipsism to mean that others don't exist.
            This is a valid premise and many conclusions can be made.

            So either you are agreeing with me, or you don't have a point. That's what it means

            >well I think xyz!
            >>yes and?
            meaning that, just bexause xyz is true, it doesn't mean anything. as in you don't have any point

            need any more lessons in the english language you fricking moron?

            >philosophers only like to argue and don't care about truth, logic, or being correct
            like pottery

            yup

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You did not accept simpoly the definition of solipsism.
            If that is what you were agreeing to, then you were unable to understand what I was saying.
            You agreed that true acceptance of solipsism makes any such discussion like this nonsense, and any person engaging thusly is not accepting the conclusions of solipsism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You agreed that true acceptance of solipsism makes any such discussion like this nonsense
            no... are you being moronic on purpose?

            you said that my use of the words 'you' and others is nonsense if I actually accepted solipsism
            I agree it is nonsense, but then look at what I said next in response to you

            >>Your actions prove you dont accept what you are asserting.
            >or maybe I use language as a tool to interact with the illusions?

            any questions?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no...
            > then you were unable to understand what I was saying.

            >you said that my use of the words 'you' and others is nonsense if I actually accepted solipsism
            No, I said your use SHOWS you dont accept. What is nonsense is this engagement, unless you dont accept solipsism.
            >or maybe I use language as a tool to interact with the illusions?
            Tools have purpose and there is no purpose to interact with illusions. That you do shows you dont think they are illusions, or that you think you are insane.
            >any questions?
            Why do you not see that your actions show you dont accept what you assert?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >there is no purpose to interact with illusions. That you do shows you dont think they are illusions, or that you think you are insane.
            wrong

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.

            >Tools have purpose and there is no purpose to interact with illusions.
            t. materialist.

            I'm an Idealist, fool.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no what?
            There are many purposes to interact with illusions.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There arent. Every purpose you will give is another illusion, the entire notion collapses and becomes pointless with solipsism.
            That is why it is a dead end.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Every purpose you will give is another illusion, the entire notion collapses and becomes pointless with solipsism.
            wrong.

            I'm not giving you anything more than the minimum response because I'd rather talk to someone else. You are singlehandedly ruining this thread, and tbh idc go ahead you fricking moron. let the west die

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not giving you anything
            You didnt even try to give a purpose because you know they are all moot with your framework.
            >You are singlehandedly ruining this thread
            You mean you are, solipsist.
            Except you dont believe that - as your actions and emotions show.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I said that what you said is wrong. You have to ask me how it's wrong. anything else is bickering.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You have to ask me how it's wrong. anything else is bickering.
            Wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            And how is it wrong? If I say anything else, it is bickering. That's how I know it's not wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If I say anything else, it is bickering.
            Wrong.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            have a nice day

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Stop bickering.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How is that bickering?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You have to ask me how it's wrong. anything else is bickering.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If I say anything else, it is bickering.
            Wrong.

            ???

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm an Idealist, fool.
            Materialism is first and foremost the devaluation of the sphere of the imagination except as a means to the end of material realization (being a tool.)
            Idealism is a form of materialism is that it tries to cope with this by reifying the imagination as the most metaphysically concrete. It's all incoherent but leads to the same metaphysically moronic consequences.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Neither of those are correct understandings.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Can any materialist prove they aren't dreaming?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, because to a materialist the very concept is an objectively determinable thing and attempts to push back "what if THAT is a dream" is moot because there is no objective data pointing to that.
            But I dont agree with this, and so while you may also not agree you can at least try to understand the argument they make.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the very concept is an objectively determinable thing
            >to a materialist
            then that would make it subjective, not objective.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >that would make it subjective
            No it wouldnt. It would make the argument subjective, not the idea of reality being argued.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            what do you think the word objective means? if two people have different opinions on it, then it is automatically subjective.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Objective means it remains the same even if two people have different opinions about it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No. Objective means it is the same and no one can have an opinion on it because it is not subjective.
            Anything you can have an opinion on, it becomes subjective.
            Of course the exception is if everyone's opinion on something is always the same no matter what. This is clearly not the case..

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >no one can have an opinion on it
            You can always have an opinion on something. Doesnt change objective fact.
            >Anything you can have an opinion on, it becomes subjective.
            Nonsense. Objective things dont change to subjective because you formed an opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why did you ignore the last line?
            >Of course the exception is if everyone's opinion on something is always the same no matter what. This is clearly not the case..
            It BTFO everything you said now.

            If someone can express doubt about something, it is not objective.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because that line means nothing.
            >If someone can express doubt about something, it is not objective.
            Completely untrue.
            Let's work this out.
            Let's assume there is an objective fact.
            I can have an opinion on that fact. Nothing stops me.
            I can even doubt the fact is true.
            None of that changes the fact.
            It doesnt suddenly become subjective because I have an opinion about an objective fact.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Because that line means nothing.
            only if you are moronic

            >Let's assume there is an objective fact.
            If you assume, then it's not objective. But sure
            >I can have an opinion on that fact. Nothing stops me.
            If it is objectively true, then logical validity will stop you. It's like saying 1+1=1, or that 1=1 is false.
            >I can even doubt the fact is true.
            Can you doubt that 1=1 is true?
            >None of that changes the fact.
            logic changes the fact of a nonmoron becoming moronic
            >It doesnt suddenly become subjective because I have an opinion about an objective fact.
            yeah it does. that's how logic works, that's what the word objective means.

            any questions?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If you assume, then it's not objective. But sure
            I refused to accept you are too stupid to understand hypotheticals.
            >It's like saying 1+1=1, or that 1=1 is false.
            Yes, their opinion would be wrong. they would still have the opinion, and their opinion wouldnt change the objective facts.
            >Can you doubt that 1=1 is true?
            Of course you can.
            >yeah it does.
            So because Terrence Howard has a different opinion on 1*1, that means math is subjective?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, their opinion would be wrong. they would still have the opinion, and their opinion wouldnt change the objective facts.
            well then it would be an invalid opinion, because that's what logic is about, validity of claims.

            >math is subjective
            it can be, but that's besides the point. stop your sophistry

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >an invalid opinion
            It would be an illogical one, sure. It would still be an opinion, and the fact would still be objective regardless.
            >it can be
            Not if you accept there is an objective reality.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tools have purpose and there is no purpose to interact with illusions.
            t. materialist.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >philosophers only like to argue and don't care about truth, logic, or being correct
    like pottery

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When I realized that "philosophy" is just the history of european thinking for the most part. That doesn't mean it isn't valuable but it certainly is a dead-end in many aspects.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      yeah eastern philosophy is much better
      westerners are tards

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    GUESS WHO GOT TROLLED? YOU GUYS. I SUBCONSCIOUSLY DO NOT BELIEVE IN SOLIPSISM.

    Which is a good thing. If solipsism was actually true I would've killed myself by now.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy that does not help you construct a well measured understanding of the world around you will waste your time. Make sure you've witnessed the world around you enough to make sense of philosophy. Few people do this.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      just be logical. it's that simple

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You can use logic on axioms that have no bearing on the world. It is not that simple.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Philosophy that does not help you construct a well measured understanding of the world around you will waste your time.

      Based and pragmaticpilled.

      >Make sure you've witnessed the world around you enough to make sense of philosophy.

      Based and empiricismpilled.

      https://pastebin.com/kcPLQwGh

      https://ia601309.us.archive.org/4/items/adventuresinCCC/adventuresinCCC.pdf

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is merely the study and investigation of fundamental questions. They can either be specific, such as the fundamental questions involving politics and government, ethics, philosophy of science, etc, or general. The most general of general studies is metaphysics, the creation of a scheme to interpret the world and one's place within it. Everyone does metaphysics, it is inextricable from language; there is no such thing as metaphysical neutrality.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      none of that matters if you can't into logic

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Logic is necessary but not sufficient, what is also requires is analogical thinking, which is relational thinking. Synthesis and analysis are the divine romance underlying all methodological creative thought.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Logic is completely sufficient, it's literally all we have. morons like to act like anything other than logic is valid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It isn't about "other than" logic, It's logic with analogic; "and" instead of "either/or."

            It isn't about rejecting science and logic, but elevating it into a shared terrain with artistic/poetic experience.

            As for the question "what is all we have?" (a metaphysical question) the answer is that all we have is dynamic creative relationships with the world, including our family members, friends, community, society, planet, and the Ultimate Community that is The Cosmos. We have relationships with objects, interests, knowledge, and everything else, and all these relationships are situated from subjective valuation and meaning. The very act of stating that something is present makes a value judgement that its presence is important enough to note, as what the statement excludes is the description of the entire rest of the universe. The subjective pole is as inextricable from our experience as the objective pole of inheritance from the past (causal efficacy.)

            The root of "rational" is "ratio," with a ratio being a relationship between measured quantities. Logic is a proposed relationship of causal implications given binding premises or rules that bind interaction. Follow hyper-logicism deep enough and it examines itself as a relationship and leads to the larger terrain of relationality of which it is a part, a process that has happened historically in the study of logic and science. Modern science revolves around studying complex systems of dynamic mutually interacting entities, instead of the mechanistically deterministic physics of Newton.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            hmmm yes yes
            >Logic is a proposed relationship of causal implications given binding premises or rules that bind interaction. Follow hyper-logicism deep enough and it examines itself as a relationship
            perhaps
            >and leads to the larger terrain of relationality of which it is a part, a process that has happened historically in the study of logic and science.
            very debatable! I'd love to see some chain of deductions here.
            >Modern science revolves around studying complex systems of dynamic mutually interacting entities, instead of the mechanistically deterministic physics of Newton.
            modern science has reached a dead end because it needs to fix the axiom of causality. otherwise the incoherence of saying quantum mechanics is indeterministic is inescapable

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >very debatable! I'd love to see some chain of deductions here.
            I really need to write a full historiography of scientific and philosophical ideas through history, but to do that properly would require at least a book.
            But basically in the old paradigm of Newtonian physics and the surrounding philosophical context the universe was considered to be essentially unchanging, but this began to change in the 1800's. Darwin helped to spearhead this revolution by describing a continuous dynamic creative process at work in the origin of species, but it was also found in the development of geology (plate tectonics,) cosmology (big bang theory and development of the solar system) physics (relativity and QM) and numerous other fields. Ecosystems ecology described organisms not as discrete things-in-themselves but situated in relationships of energy and matter exchange with other environing entities. "Change, emergence, and interdependence" is the overwhelming theme of modern science.

            >modern science has reached a dead end because it needs to fix the axiom of causality.

            What it needs is an axiom of co-causality, a description of the primordial creative process, and this image describes it analogically and analytically:

            https://i.imgur.com/6P1hW4Z.jpg

            >Philosophy that does not help you construct a well measured understanding of the world around you will waste your time.

            Based and pragmaticpilled.

            >Make sure you've witnessed the world around you enough to make sense of philosophy.

            Based and empiricismpilled.

            https://pastebin.com/kcPLQwGh

            https://ia601309.us.archive.org/4/items/adventuresinCCC/adventuresinCCC.pdf

            It can be imagined as a romance between scientific and artistic modes of experience. Change is the nature of all things, and so we take the fundamental theorem of calculus as our metaphysical axiom - the description of the primordial creative relationship.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I really need to write a full historiography of scientific and philosophical ideas through history, but to do that properly would require at least a book.
            lol same

            >What it needs is an axiom of co-causality, a description of the primordial creative process,
            yes (assuming we are on the same page), but we can get there without compromising any standards of logical validity
            >and this image describes it analogically and analytically:
            idk I didn't exactly see any deductions but i barely skimmed it
            >It can be imagined as a romance between scientific and artistic modes of experience
            YES! That's why I said we need to approach phenomenology with the context of analytical philosophy (and skepticism).
            phenomenology is the answer to the solipsistic dead end in searching for irrefutable truths (self evident premises)
            ...but western academia leaves much much much to be desired in it's exploration of phenomenology
            >Change is the nature of all things, and so we take the fundamental theorem of calculus as our metaphysical axiom - the description of the primordial creative relationship.
            that is interesting, but it still doesn't explore the nature of perception itself. we are still within the perception and analyzing the content of perception. let's look at the mechanisms of perception itself!

            anyways what you got is a good attempt as any, since these explorations are sorely lacking in modern academia!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >that is interesting, but it still doesn't explore the nature of perception itself. we are still within the perception and analyzing the content of perception. let's look at the mechanisms of perception itself!

            Based, my metaphysical inquiry emerged from such an analysis. This analysis began when I took a class in mindfulness-based cognitive therapy and realized that the modes of "being" and "doing" described in this theory corresponded to two modes of change-perception: that of perception of instantaneous change in the ever-changing flux of a experiential present moment, and cumulative change over time (temporal duration.) The mode of "doing" is goal-directed because as a temporal movement it is a movement towards a possible desired future. The mode of doing is the mode of thinking, daydreaming and communicating: it is narrative, about the creation and experience of stories of change over time.

            Mindfulness practice cultivates the mode of "being," the simple observation of the presesent moment with the goal-directed mode of "daydreaming" minimized. Prioritization of this perceptual mode leads to many of the biases of Buddhistic thought, such as the skepticism or sometimes outright rejection of desire and language/narrative. This has an unexpected synergy with a trend in Western thought of devaluing the subjective pole of experience in favor of describing only "present matters of fact."

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            When I was 15 I taught myself and experimented heavily with "doing" mode meditation, which is essentially the art of creating self-induced hallucinations by exploiting a feedback loop between anticipation and perception to create illusory perceptions. _This is what the imagination essentially always does_, the imagination is a phantom hallucination, the only difference is the degree of "immersion." I originally experimented with inducing and manipulating tactile hallucinations ("chi" or "kundalini") and then learned to exploit the same mechanism to do the same in other senses, eventually leading to "astral travel," the creation and experience of a fully-immersive self-hallucinated experience. https://pastebin.com/vHKeTau2

            Perception-bending can and has been abused to create feedback loops of perceptual confirmation bias where one has profound spiritual experiences that coincide with their expectations. This is the core of what religious ritual is all about: creating an immersive situation that encourages one to emotionally experience the consequences of their belief. For example when Christians "feel God's love" in Church raising their hands up and praising Him they are engaging in group perception bending.

            These two perceptual modes are best interpreted as evolutionary operations, with the goal-directed mode of narrative being the selective aspect of experience, and the mode of present sense-experience the mutational mode, where our consciousness is continually mutated by novel sense-experience. Without exposure to novel information, the result is stagnation as all one can do is follow the consequences from what has been previously given. Without selective valuation the result is dispersion as everything is asignficant and aconsequential, all paths leading to the same condition of valuelessness (literally nothing matters.)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Within the mode of "presentational immediacy" or present-mindedness there is also a dynamic of integration and differentiation found in the interdependent relationships between part and whole, and within the narrative mode of "causal efficacy" or cognition there is a dynamic of integration and differentiation found between questions and choices, where a choice is of course the selective operation of cognition, and questioning being the mutative, which can be seen in questions such as "what other choices are possible?" which when following can lead to the apprehension of new possibilities. The so-called "problems" of free will in Western thought come from not properly interpreting cognition (learning, simply) as an evolutionary process, obsessing to religious degrees at the contracting faculty of choice to the expense of the expanding faculty of questioning.

            Also the process of question -> choice -> action can be applied as a self-help method, described in pic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is fascinating and I'm going to have to break it down later, but just for now, what does 'self evident premise' mean to you? I have asked before, about making a deduction without an induction. My implication is that if we can make chains of deductions from a self evident premise that is truly self evident, that would be a system that has much more integrity and is more 'sound' and valid as they say (like trying to prove the axiom of causality instead of leaving it as an axiom).
            I find the terms and syntax used very inconsistent so that's why this seems so difficult to talk about, at least to me.

            Saying the past causes the future can be doubted by a religious or spiritual person who says that God orchestrates everything. Not only is this relevant to the heart of philosophy of science (logic of causality and maybe nature of logic itself) today, but it is this conundrum that really stalled the Islamic golden age (this is what weakened them and allowed the mongols to invade)

            This guy explains it well, but you can look up the Mutazilite Ashaarite dispute.

            So maybe there is something that no one can doubt. I think I found one, and I hinted at it when I say phenomenology, but what do you think if there is any? Before I say it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The most valuable proposition I've ever found, the greatest truth is "the more you appreciate, savor, and nourish beauty, the more beautiful it becomes." The Good Life is an endless search for beauty in the forms that most speak and elevate one's soul.

            My philosophical explorations emerged from the religious pursuit of natural and imaginary beauty, pursuits that have elevated my soul to a condition that I can only describe as romantic love for life and the world - not a parent/child subject/object cause/effect master/slave relationship, but one where mutual influence and co-creation is primary.

            This is obscene to traditional theology as it elevates Eros to the level of divinity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is fascinating and I'm going to have to break it down later, but just for now, what does 'self evident premise' mean to you? I have asked before, about making a deduction without an induction. My implication is that if we can make chains of deductions from a self evident premise that is truly self evident, that would be a system that has much more integrity and is more 'sound' and valid as they say (like trying to prove the axiom of causality instead of leaving it as an axiom).
            I find the terms and syntax used very inconsistent so that's why this seems so difficult to talk about, at least to me.

            Saying the past causes the future can be doubted by a religious or spiritual person who says that God orchestrates everything. Not only is this relevant to the heart of philosophy of science (logic of causality and maybe nature of logic itself) today, but it is this conundrum that really stalled the Islamic golden age (this is what weakened them and allowed the mongols to invade)

            This guy explains it well, but you can look up the Mutazilite Ashaarite dispute.

            So maybe there is something that no one can doubt. I think I found one, and I hinted at it when I say phenomenology, but what do you think if there is any? Before I say it.

            >what does 'self evident premise' mean to you?

            Doesn't require justification or evidence; it is taken as true by whomever reads it.

            I am a radical emiricist, in that I treat every aspect of experience as a field of creative experimentation, and the basic architecture of this process is described by Whitehead as taking flight from "particular observation," not from self-evident premise. What is self-evident is the observed experience as observed experience, what is not are the implications and generalizations that emerge from the observation.

            I am also a radical artist, in that I made no distinction between art and non-art; my experience is a creative medium of creative mediums.

            What unfolds from this is a project to describe the commonalities and specificities of creative processes, _with the goal of enhancing their efficacy_. The goal isn't to create a perfect, passive, eternally "satisfying" truth upvoted as truth on Mindbook but rather to create a system of concepts and interpretations that can facilitate greater engagement with the subject matter.

            The ultimate test of my theory is whether it has what it takes to catalyze an educational singularity, which is the most ambitious project conceivable. With language models I now have a medium to truly advance such an aim by having it model fictional characters that are self-aware of their own fictional nature, having the paradox "my existence is false" at the heart of their existence. The phrase "I think, therefore I am" is replaced by the statement "we are, therefore I am," inverting the Kantian scheme where the world emerges from the subject into the process-relational scheme of the subject emerging from the world.

            https://pastebin.com/kcPLQwGh

            > let's look at the mechanisms of perception itself!

            https://i.imgur.com/5kdAVf5.jpg

            When I was 15 I taught myself and experimented heavily with "doing" mode meditation, which is essentially the art of creating self-induced hallucinations by exploiting a feedback loop between anticipation and perception to create illusory perceptions. _This is what the imagination essentially always does_, the imagination is a phantom hallucination, the only difference is the degree of "immersion." I originally experimented with inducing and manipulating tactile hallucinations ("chi" or "kundalini") and then learned to exploit the same mechanism to do the same in other senses, eventually leading to "astral travel," the creation and experience of a fully-immersive self-hallucinated experience. https://pastebin.com/vHKeTau2

            Perception-bending can and has been abused to create feedback loops of perceptual confirmation bias where one has profound spiritual experiences that coincide with their expectations. This is the core of what religious ritual is all about: creating an immersive situation that encourages one to emotionally experience the consequences of their belief. For example when Christians "feel God's love" in Church raising their hands up and praising Him they are engaging in group perception bending.

            These two perceptual modes are best interpreted as evolutionary operations, with the goal-directed mode of narrative being the selective aspect of experience, and the mode of present sense-experience the mutational mode, where our consciousness is continually mutated by novel sense-experience. Without exposure to novel information, the result is stagnation as all one can do is follow the consequences from what has been previously given. Without selective valuation the result is dispersion as everything is asignficant and aconsequential, all paths leading to the same condition of valuelessness (literally nothing matters.)

            https://i.imgur.com/6V0JM7S.jpg

            Within the mode of "presentational immediacy" or present-mindedness there is also a dynamic of integration and differentiation found in the interdependent relationships between part and whole, and within the narrative mode of "causal efficacy" or cognition there is a dynamic of integration and differentiation found between questions and choices, where a choice is of course the selective operation of cognition, and questioning being the mutative, which can be seen in questions such as "what other choices are possible?" which when following can lead to the apprehension of new possibilities. The so-called "problems" of free will in Western thought come from not properly interpreting cognition (learning, simply) as an evolutionary process, obsessing to religious degrees at the contracting faculty of choice to the expense of the expanding faculty of questioning.

            Also the process of question -> choice -> action can be applied as a self-help method, described in pic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Newtonian physics and the surrounding philosophical context the universe was considered to be essentially unchanging
            clearly in Newtonian things change all the time through motion-thoughbeit? The whole point of it is to describe things changing through motion, so it's odd to say Darwin is different for saying things change.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            hmmm yes yes
            >Logic is a proposed relationship of causal implications given binding premises or rules that bind interaction. Follow hyper-logicism deep enough and it examines itself as a relationship
            perhaps
            >and leads to the larger terrain of relationality of which it is a part, a process that has happened historically in the study of logic and science.
            very debatable! I'd love to see some chain of deductions here.
            >Modern science revolves around studying complex systems of dynamic mutually interacting entities, instead of the mechanistically deterministic physics of Newton.
            modern science has reached a dead end because it needs to fix the axiom of causality. otherwise the incoherence of saying quantum mechanics is indeterministic is inescapable

            >modern science has reached a dead end because it needs to fix the axiom of causality. otherwise the incoherence of saying quantum mechanics is indeterministic is inescapable
            Furthermore, in my opinion, the solution is to approach phenomenology with skepticism and analytical philosophy, to say it succinctly. Solipsism is only be beginning, then you get Buddhism and stuff lol. But that's still only one of many many different directions of inferences that the infinite potential can take you, from the one (or any, if there is more than one), self evident premise.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Logic is not external action. It cannot teach you how to act properly except in the most dry and shallow way that is devoid of technique. Methodology is insufficient without being able to build on top of it with actual, real-world choices whose consequences will cross against illogical people, or people who seem illogical to you because they have chosen different axioms. Logic alone cannot handle this amount of detail because your brain is not large enough and you do not have enough time to hold your entire environment in your mind. You will descend into complexity and ever more precise definitions, and you will not be able to surface until you are willing to reduce the cognitive load into something simple enough to allow you to see the complexity as just a sea of detail. Accuracy is usually more important than precision.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Philosophy is just a way to describe the magic! Many of them are wrong. But still needed as a thought exercise which is completely valid. And probably applicable based on your own subjective interpretation of reality.
    The point is, the reality of God is simply unfathomable for us. Although we can try.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's only you. Manifesting yourself in all living beings

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I figured. Primordially alone. Might go kill myself.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        why what difference does it make
        just keep participating in the illusion but mindful of the fact that its an illusion

        its all for fun

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          everyone may be you but there are so many infinite variations of you that technically thats both true and untrue

          everything in existence has infinite variations
          it will always be novel because thats simply how infinity is

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm all alone 🙁

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            no your not
            you have yourself
            you have always been there for you
            you just keep ignoring that

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If I have myself (literally me)

            Then I am objectively alone. Because everything is me.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but how can there be loneliness if you were always alone
            your experiencing the closest thing to reality you can ever hope to experience which might as well be real
            there is no actual reference point for loneliness
            the self is the only refuge

            all of life is larp and coping
            because that is its very foundation in the first place

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you are so infinitely complex that it doesnt mean jack shit whether you are alone or not

            you either embrace this or you spend the rest of your existence malding about it

            thats about it really

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            when you have a dream, even according to the most materialistic perspective, the dream is happening in your head, ur subconscious and such.

            Yet, there are dream characters that cause you to be suprised.
            How can this be, when they are just part of your mind?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because it's all me experiencing myself. That's the dream I am having. A dream where I have others. But it's all a hoax. I'm no fool.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            then how can you ever get surprised?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't anymore.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you get surprised because you are part of an infinite network of one awareness
            since time is happening all at once this is why you experience the illusion of other people

            if you look at it in linear time then logically from this point of view you should be the only thing that exists and it looks like you arent

            if you look at it from the angle that everything is happening at once in infinite quantity like the frames of a movie overlapped over eachother then it makes much more sense

            getting your mind wrapped around this takes some persistence but its what makes sense to me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you get surprised because you are part of an infinite network of one awareness

            Nothing more than solipsism with the ultimate source being the fear of the Other, and so this fear is coped with by denying the metaphysical reality of otherness itself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            its like a mycelium network and the conscious beings are the mushrooms

            the actual being is the bigass mass of mycelium underground but the mushrooms are still part of it and it at the same time

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            but in this instance each mushroom is also its own mycelium network because it goes down infinitely kind of like a mandelbrot fractal
            it doesnt end at the mushrooms
            theres more mycelium masses deep within those mushrooms and then those mycelium masses have their own mushrooms

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're thinking of terms incoherently because you don't have a grip on your ultimate metaphysical principle.
            This is because that principle is horse shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            can you frick off with your sophistry?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            horse shit beliefs for a horse shit reality
            seems fine to me

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            woooooooahhhhhhhhhh dude

            >you get surprised because you are part of an infinite network of one awareness

            Nothing more than solipsism with the ultimate source being the fear of the Other, and so this fear is coped with by denying the metaphysical reality of otherness itself.

            yes but also Buddhism

            but in this instance each mushroom is also its own mycelium network because it goes down infinitely kind of like a mandelbrot fractal
            it doesnt end at the mushrooms
            theres more mycelium masses deep within those mushrooms and then those mycelium masses have their own mushrooms

            its like a mycelium network and the conscious beings are the mushrooms

            the actual being is the bigass mass of mycelium underground but the mushrooms are still part of it and it at the same time

            cum

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://ily888.itch.io/horse-orc-rpe-academy
    https://ily888.itch.io/billys-quest-for-love
    thes take place in the same world i would say
    the academy is somewhere north from the city i would think
    and you cant go north from the city in billys quest
    but its the same city i supose

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Nah it's real for me, accepting 8it made my life for much better lol

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I've had three songs looping in my head for the past week. This one, George Michael's 'Faith', and 'Living on a Prayer.' It won't stop.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >TFW you're forced by the state to get "mental health treatment."
    >But you won't take ze meds.
    >So you make your therapist battle your psychiatrist, forcing your psychiatrist to do shitloads of additional work for recommending meds.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      just take the meds. some of them get you high. that's my newfound perspective. I've been in similar situations.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP here. I'm God. Joke's on me.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    THE COSMIC JOKE

    “To realize that all your life… you know, all your love, all your hate, all your memory, all your pain, it was all the same thing. It was all the same dream. A dream that you had inside a locked room. A dream about being a person. And like a lot of dreams there’s a monster at the end of it.”

  34. 1 month ago
    no, buddy

    Illusions exist but that doesn't mean they are real.

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    At school.

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Do you have any idea how a Buddhist concept like not using the mind pisses people off when they are taught specifically to use the mind and that thought itself is all one needs to prove they are intelligent, sentient, conscious, existent. And here there is an idea that one should not be using the mind, one should not associate with thoughts and the mind. Then what. It's all useless. Every philosophy and system of thought is useless. Meanwhile the thinker believes the same about the Buddhist, that they are not thinking enough.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I'm glad someone's acknowledged it. Buddhist thought is like if philosophy stopped at the pre-Socratics, because they didn't have the culture Greeks did, and decided Zeno (or someone alike) was the Best and One philosopher.
      Now I'm not saying it's 'wrong' or 'right'. just that's what it is and everyone seems to deny that-instead of, 'yes', Zeno is on the right track, and no thinking, or 'no', thinking or some other way of thought might be what one needs, not that. All of the replies that deny it don't seem to be anything other than instinctive and don't say anything meaningful so...

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That is NOT buddhism at all. That is new age garbage people float around, on piles of narcissism. I don't even like Buddhism. It is the antithesis of everything I study... but if you are going to pretend to be a part of it, at least do them the honor of representing their beliefs more fully than that shit.

      Go and maybe read some books by Dr. Richard King. He has done an excellent job tracing back the commercial representations of buddhism that have led so many young people on youtube and tiktok to conflate "mindlessness" meditation with "mindfulness"

      Buddhism uses several techniques to train the mind and you are basically stripping one out of its context, removing all the effort that goes into it and using it as a vehicle for your own narcissism.

      That is .... ironic.... at best.

      Get a clue.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        as much as I dislike buddhism, what they are aiming for is a mental feat something like an olympic athlete. the ability to simultaneously focus on one thing as all things at once. it requires training mindfullness, and also extreme concentration side by side. monks go through many different processes, periods of training, to grow different parts of their awareness in preparation for this feat.

        buddhism is anything but a spiritual lobotomy. i might not like where they end up, but they work a lot harder than you are giving them credit for to get there.

        this so called mindfullness meditation... really mindlessness .... has been promoted in schools, prisons, business conventions, ..etc. you name it and it is pasted all over everything. it isn't buddhism. you aren't monks.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Everyone in this thread:
    Hmmm... I think I will descend into Plato's cave today and b***h about the shadow play not being realistic enough.

    midwits get to shut up. only morons and actually smart people can talk about philosophy coherently because they're not so caught up on trying to legislate what reality should be with their own concept of law

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    "I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind"

  39. 1 month ago
    Seanonymous

    It got to you that bad huh?

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah, it's just narcisism posing as a school of thought.
    If any and all ideas and things outside of your mind can be questioned and stated as not real, then why are you paying taxes?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      How do you have schools of thought that aren't philosophical in nature? Do you even understand what philosophy is? I guess not.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >babby's first encounter with the word "philosophy"
    man it's hard to describe how moronic you are

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Your family will burn to death in a fire.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You aren't smart enough to curse someone using the power of the universe. Literally the universe doesn't give a shit about someone like you.

        God bless you. You are going to need it.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          have a nice day homosexual.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why give me the advice you need? I tried and the universe saved me. Would it do the same for you?

            Just be glad you are alive and maybe leave others alone. You don't really need any more bad karma in your life do you? If you can't understand what others are saying, it will make you angry. Go read a book 🙂

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I already know about The Egg. If everyone else in existence is me, then I'll just keep accruing bad karma. I'll rack that shit up. I'm bringing all of us down. We're going into Oblivion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You come across as mildly moronic. Why would the universe manifest itself in someone who can't even comprehend its secrets? You will be a side quest for someone greater than you if you don't get a different attitude.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm going to kill myself so it doesn't matter

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Why not just reinvent yourself. If fricking madonna gets to, why not you?

            Start from the ground up. Re-imagine every part of your persona and existence. Re-author yourself.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >For you created my inmost being;
            > you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
            >14
            >I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
            > your works are wonderful,
            > I know that full well.
            >15
            >My frame was not hidden from you
            > when I was made in the secret place,
            > when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
            >16
            >Your eyes saw my unformed body;
            > all the days ordained for me were written in your book
            > before one of them came to be.

            You have a purpose. You are not useless. If you are sad now, it's only because you have been given an inkling that things could be better. Don't let the fact that they could be better, dissuade from you living in the now, from seeing what is good now. Less good is not the same as evil. We will always be less good than what we could be, but we are always moving towards the "Omega point" of God.

            The power of "I AM" is the present, becoming the future...

            I rebuke your worthlessness. Stand up and be counted Child of Adam.

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Religion is a smile on a dog.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I thought about philosophical and grand concepts constantly as a child independently of these "great thinkers" of the past. I've lost most of my creativity now but I think it's absurd anyone would read about thoughts they've already had before. Philosophy is for normie npcs with no capacity for philosophical thought

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *