/lit/ - Literature

--------------------
>solipsistic
>believe that the world is absurd and unintelligible.
>do not believe that a hopeless struggle/revolt will assign any meaning or significance to that struggle/revolt itself.
-------------
>believe that I must concoct models of the absurd world in my mind that I can exploit to make my struggle/revolt more convenient/"happy". this model includes a description of myself and human nature that enslaves me in my struggle itself.
>realize that the desire for convenience/happiness and desirability is a part of that model itself
>realize the hopeless inescapability of this circular system in which I'm trapped.
>accept this as a stoic would
>continue to struggle (or believe in the illusion of it): to maximize the utility of desirability
---------------
>moral relativist
>almost entirely indifferent to the state/humanity
>care about it only insofar as how much it affects me and the people to whom my happiness is tied.
--------------------
if forced to opine on the state
>believe that the individual and the state are at conflict (in terms of goals and utility)
>therefore my goals and the state's are at conflict
>therefore only have preferences on how the running of the state based on how much it aligns with my own goals
>currently prefer an egalitarian, left liberal socialist state.
>maybe once I'm rich my preferences will change.

can all of the above be categorized coherently and consistently in some philosophical doctrine?