/lit/ - Literature

>>11715713
>chasing success and thots
>not giving a fuck

>>9632655
I wanted to be free from obligation.

Work is the worst in that sense, so that one I was most motivated to quit. Then I realised maintaining a romantic relationship was more of a job than anything else as well, so I decided to do without. I think I've been celibate for seven years now or so.

With addictions like cigarettes and coffee I realised that they too were just another job, a useless obligation to be fulfilled every day in order to stay functional. So I weaned myself off of those to be more free.

Weed and alcohol are fun at first but in the end also turn into just another job, a habit that you engage in without any real pleasure. So when I realised they were more of a negative contribution I started working on those as well.

Porn was the easiest of all since numbed, sleazy mindstate it puts you in is evident and clears up noticeably when you quit.

Ultimately it's not so much the vices themselves but the habits and being dependant on them. I'm not saying I'll never drink again or never have a cup of tea, but as soon as you start needing them in your daily routine it's time to let go again. And by letting go of them again and again you seem to exercise your general ability to detach, as if asceticism is a skill in itself that can be trained.

The goal is to be as independent as possible beyond the necessities of life, at least for me. It gives peace of mind and makes you more prepared for hardship.

>>6766103
There are serious issues with the graph, here's a non-biased version of what happened(I'm not remotely religious and I don't give a fuck what religious people do, Islam can storm Europe and LDS can envelop the US for all I care, I am neutral)

For one thing, this only applies to the western world.

Rome was a vast republic->empire that had immense resources and a good setting and context for scientific advancement(always needing to conquer others to sustain their methods of governance and economy, and defend it). When Rome collapsed, what was left over was a diverse and widespread series of feudalistic regimes and barbarian clans, of varying size and power, that had nothing close to the coherence of Rome. There simply wasn't a context for a great deal of scientific advancement, as nobody had any particular need and interest in it that had the resources required to make it happen. That eventually changed as large, expansive empires began forming again in the fourteenth century. Christians played a role in the sluggishness of technological development but were not remotely the direct cause, if anything, blame the German barbarian clans for fucking Rome in the butt instead of joining them.

I don't necessarily see scientific/technological advancement as good or bad btw, I just see it as something that exists, and this is roughly how it progressed in western civilization.

Who's the most based philosopher to ever live?

Which philosophical perspectives make the least jumps in logic when it comes to observable reality?