/lit/ - Literature

>>13534962
Google The Stockdale Paradox. This idea has been resolved before.

>>13534962
they are naturally blackpilled which means they aren't blackpilled at all.
>spite the suffering they've already digested and moved beyond
they arent capable of feeling suffering because they arent real people

>>13534962
Your answer in 3 mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FpgLAuZdutM&app=desktop

>>13534968
Being in solitary confinement that long would make you snap which is good because a person with that kind of permanent disability is a great source of information on reality.

>>13534968
Seems pretty anecdotal. Literally "He overcame, so can u"

we are not a single selfhood, selfhood is not a single identity, identity is not a single movement

i dub this the plenum pill, the multi-pill

>>13534996
and I dub it a load with no satisfactory explanation or evidence. Expand; is this symbol/set bullshit or just woo? Better not be woo

just don't see how an individual actually suffers less from the attitude. I mean, he just didn't die. He really could have carried any attitude and who knows what would have happened. His life could have been made easier by giving in to pessimism

also I remember this guy now from the Perot run, my brother was just trying to remember him. He was kind of aloof I think, at least I remember him being characterized as such

>>13535020
so you're into "one size fits all" philosophy? seems like we wouldn't get along very well

individuals are not a single thing, there is a constant regeneration of identities, desires, histories etc. and if you want "evidence" that we are made up of foreign materials look into linguistics, historiography, or even molecular biology: "Human cells make up only 43% of the body's total cell count."

you are not your self

>>13534983
>3 mins
nothing personnel, kiddo

>>13535060
Sooo, what? I get a pass?

Am I so influenced and spun on the winds that my attitude will never be self-determined? I mean it won't be, but that's just determinism for ya'

I guess I'm not seeing how this fits the thread

>>13535079
Not him, but your attitude could be self determined and you're still paralysed as far as the doctors testing you are concerned is an extreme example. You could also be completely devoid of self determination and doing things at the behest of your domme, but everyone in the workplace sees you as a model employee. None of those could be said to be complete selves but they are overlapping parts of selves. I think anon might be arguing that a true self is a very fuzzy thing. I mean, is Stalin's history as written by anyone truly Stalin himself? Even though you have a larger perspective when writing about him, you can't be said to know him personally from absorbing even three books about him. Even if you met him, nobody would presume to know him. He would have to know more beyond himself than is fathomable and we would have to know more of him than is written or thought by anyone else about him to pin down what he was exactly as a self. And even then, do we count what his gut bacteria say?

>>13535104
Okay, if the true self is not entirely defined, or nebulous I guess, then General Hard-Ass's strategy of positivity an be thought of as like a little shared coping boat we can slap together; could be that these strategies boil down to something more universal, or any other mindset.

For all that depth, the little switch throws and knob turns unique to my set-up, we can find a range of predictable patterns and responses. How's that shit come about in the noize?

source: just trust me bro

To clarify, I'm not asking why nature selects for responses. I want to know how your concept of self constructs its responses, or how it influences more hardwired shit.

>>13534962
>and not Will to Power either
So, what? Cognitive dissonance?
Sure, but I’m not sure it’s most of them

>>13535745
Elective Cognitive Dissonance, I guess. Is that a thing?

>>13535697
>I need to know whether a bullwhip or a plane caused the sonic boom for me to hear the crack
You muddle through.