/lit/ - Literature

>>14715537
oppositional defiance disorder?

You have no values or convictions of your own and are easily influence

You're an easily influenced contrarian.

>>14715537
>read capitalist realism
>become a marxist
That's the point. Are you sure you read that one?

>>14715537
https://www.amazon.com/Letters-Young-Contrarian-Mentoring-Paperback/dp/0465030335

>>14715537
cute anime girl, thanks for posting

>>14715560
>>14715567
I actually have strict values of perfectionism but I just fail to be entirely convinced one way or the other. I’ve coined the term No Stable Ground Theory in the sense that you can argue about anything depending on reference point and environmental perspective. I’d rather call it Wave Theory considering the movement of universal philosophy isn’t static but any ever evolving thing which moves laterally between metaphysical constraints of the material world. Idk though I’ve done a lot of low grade LSD trips and that’s what I keep coming back to no matter how much I try and justify a universal philosophy which domains over all. You can just easily pick whatever you choose apart as long as you have the aptitude for pattern recognition.

>>14715537
>read contrarian literature
>become sincere
problem solved

>>14715587
You think you're more intelligent than you actually are

>>14715622
based

>>14715624
the lit story

>>14715537
>Need labels to live
I just call myself whatever to ingratiate myself to whatever group of people I'm talking to.

>>14715622
I’m already sincere. I just feel as if the authors I read are naturally vampiric and wish only to influence me in order to perpetuate their eternal form. >>14715624
Explain why then you contrarian douchecanoe

>>14715622
become so ironic you end up at radical sincerity

>>14715657
Ironically this is how I actually feel.

>>14715660
yeah i'm only half trolling, this is how rorty says real belief forms (more or less) and i'm not sure he's wrong

>>14715665
Well, it seems that persuasion can only originate out of sincerity. Anything less is just rhetoric.

>>14715624
>>14715632
>you’re an idiot
>offers no explanation why
Never change, /lit/

>>14715537
then you must have read hegel because you're a retarded animeposter

>>14715861
Who’s Hegel?

>>14715636
If you simply adopt the contrary value, you haven't escaped their influence; and by standing in opposition to them, you are perpetuating their 'eternal form' precisely through that opposition. A question referring to >>14715587 this post: the OP seems to suggest predominantly social philosophies, yet here you are referring to metaphysics (specifically universals)? can you expand further on what you mean (in general, but also) by
>the movement of universal philosophy isn’t static but any ever evolving thing which moves laterally between metaphysical constraints of the material world
and, isn't
>you can argue about anything depending on reference point and environmental perspective
itself Stable Ground?

>>14715879
>you can argue about anything depending on reference point and environmental perspective
>itself Stable Ground?
I’m the op in both people you’re replying to. What I’m saying is that by recognizing yourself as a mortal being with a temporary existence, you enslaved yourself to ideology. Thereby, the only way out is to simply be unaware of time, to live in the present but not be aware of it, neither the past nor the future either. Through this you return to being in its natural state, for being has no awareness. When you are awake but unaware, you maintain form with non-awareness (aka sleep and death). When one becomes “woke” to this finite being, he shatters the real being and inverts the process so as to be fooled into believing his “woke” being is true being while denying his non-being as the false form, even though wokeness is shackled to the chains of non-being. We live in hell, and the only way to enter heaven is to lose awareness of being in hell. Que sera, sera; what will be, will be.

To relate this back to No Stable Ground - once one recognizes the property of absurdity of ideology, he may either reject this finding out of philopsychia or he may enter fully into the kingdom of heaven and achieve everlasting peace with the material realm (aka hell). The material world is a conflict of Satan attempting to reconnect with God. This is achieved through resolution of conflict, as resolution is a property of eternal good, being what will happen will happen, thereby resolution of conflict is a manifestation of God.

>>14715879
>you can argue about anything depending on reference point and environmental perspective itself Stable Ground
As I failed to address this point out of inattention, the purpose of No Stable Ground Theory is to be both a self refuting, yet self fulfilling concept. This is the only true philosophy of the Logos to exist that fulfills the metaphysical form of the circle proper.

>>14715537
You didn’t go for best girl Buratei

>>14715537
It’s called being based

4channel had infected you with the contrarian virus

>>14715537
Intelligence and potential for higher spiritual realization is what's wrong with you -- the unconscious realization that no conceptual schemae perfectly describe your psyche. I think you would go well with Jung. Confusion is a prerequisite for growth, you'll likely have to run yourself to the "ideological endpoint" before you start becoming a genuine person. You'll go through every conceptual opposite and with time outgrow them all, unless you neck yourself from the pressure of not being able to find your own place in due time. I wish you the best of luck on your journey.

>It is of course a fundamental mistake to imagine that when we see the non-value in a value or the untruth in a truth, the value or the truth ceases to exist.It has only become relative. Everything human is relative, because everything rests on an inner polarity; for everything is a phenomenon of energy. Energy necessarily depends on a preexisting polarity, without which there could be no energy. There must always be high and low, hot and cold, etc., so that the equilibrating process—which is energy—can take place. Therefore the tendency to deny all previous values in favour of their opposites is just as much of an exaggeration as the earlier one-sidedness. And in so far as it is a question of rejecting universally accepted and indubitable values, the result is a fatal loss. One who acts in this wav empties himself out with his values, as Nietzsche has already said.

>>14716648
>Intelligence and potential for higher spiritual realization is what's wrong with you
Ironically I already believe in God. >>14715957
>>14716013
Can someone at least critique this philosophy? It’s aggravating not knowing whether it’s comprehendable to layman.

section 31 of the preface to the phenomenology of spirit. you're stuck in the endless play of différance

>>14717440
The Munchhausen trilemma can't be argued for, only pointed to. When you allow for implicit assumptions you open Pandora's box and you get NSG, even though this undermines itself. That's why it could only ever be pointed to as a fact.

Systems are either explicit and defined as self-contained, paradox and contradictions included (but still necessarily shunned as logical complications), or there's no system. Axioms are a necessary evil (or alternatively, flawed good) because thought doesn't function without an object of thought. If you'll allow me to over-generalize, this is why attempts at constructing differential ontologies always fails, because the instant they're constructed they fall into their own pit of inconsistencies. You could try to solve this by embracing paradox positively as part of a system, but in doing so the system becomes functionally ineffective, it has no practical value and can't inform any action or further thinking.

grow up

>>14718196
The Münchhausen is wrong though. You have addressed a single point of my thesis in your response except to say that paradoxical functions are useless in that they themselves are paradoxes, but that is the point. Once you’ve established a self-replicating system you are able to observe how this system is able to function within itself and thereby determine the outside influences necessary to provide form for the system.

>>14715587
look at it this way: if anybody knew what they were talking about, they'd have the power, wouldn't they? but nobody does, and so the result of that is that all forms of politics (read: real-world application of moral principles) consist of either endless bickering and purity spiraling with no real-world significance since people are just there to satisfy their emotional thirst for righteousness or whatever, or ass-kissing in established parties for how better to serve the powers that be

>>14715537
You know capitalist realism isn’t in favor of capitalism right?

>>14715587
>You can just easily pick whatever you choose apart as long as you have the aptitude for pattern recognition.
Nah. You can see the biases of the author leaking through the text, yes, but that doesn't automatically invalidate everything they have to say unless you're turbo cynical

>>14715537
>>14715587
Why hello there fellow INFP

>>14718318
>if anybody knew what they were talking about, they'd have the power, wouldn't they? but nobody does
That’s why I’m attempting to prove that I do have the totality of answers in the philosophy I develop and post

>>14715537
sounds like you are ready to hear some testimony from holocaust survivors

>>14718296
Your division between what constitutes awareness and non awareness blurs in the face of multiplying interpretations, though. If you hold that capital R Reality is fundamentally experiential, then the experience of "illusioned limited being" could be no more chained than your "disillusioned nonbeing" before birth. There's nothing to be done, nothing to unchain if you hold that awareness is what makes a being free or not. You're always living in the moment, whether you like it or not. Your thoughts, premonitions, w/e are also experienced in the moment.

In a sense it's also senseless to attribute nonawareness to death and deep sleep. If you'll allow me to argue in an illusioned, "chained" manner: The lack of a memory of what happens during a coma does not give any more credence to there being such an state like nonbeing, or even an event at all during those times compared to saying there's experiential being.

Ie. you propose a system that purports to explain paradox in ideology as a consequence of material illusion and finite being, but fall into a similar axiomatization of experiential matters whilst arbitrarily dividing what makes a liberated vs non-liberated being, which are both "valid" experiences. The Münchhausen critique holds true even here, unless you actively dismiss it and hold that your system is explicitly true despite its "flaws".

>>14715587
Yeah, that's what acid does to you, you fucking retard.

>>14715537
I have a disgust towards people like you that like to say "I am X" or I support "-ism", typical midwitism to feel smart.

>>14719875
based disgustist posting anti-ideologism

>>14719584
Tell us about your acid experiences, anon.

>>14718643
>Your division between what constitutes awareness and non awareness blurs in the face of multiplying interpretations, though.
It does not so as long as it holds true to form. An interpretation is an interpretation, but it’s folly to assume this is based on purely on “experience”. I have not experienced death, yet I am aware of what it is, am I not? A lack of experience yet chained intellect which denotes a possible experience precedes the notion of only knowing through experience. This is true as we are held to contingencies which are formally external to our self which effectively limits physically but doesn’t not impinge metaphysically.
> There's nothing to be done, nothing to unchain if you hold that awareness is what makes a being free or not.
I feel you are missing the core of my argument, as I don’t argue awareness is being, but rather a lack thereof. When man left the Garden of Eden, he did so upon totalizing the possibility and inevitability of death, not through some petty defiance of divine command.
> In a sense it's also senseless to attribute nonawareness to death and deep sleep.
Again, you wholly miss my point. Non-awareness is being. Upon cognating your being, you remove your natural state and superimpose a false form, although it is very conniving form. A rock is not alive, or it is, or it is not aware of its being, yet is still being. Humans again have superimposed their ego onto themselves by saying awareness is being in order to justify their fear and awareness of death. I use sleep as an example, for when we are asleep and dream we recognize no absurdity of our waking stars through our dreams; we are not aware we are dreaming. Yet when we are awake we realize the absurdity of our dreams (aka we realize an absurdity of not being aware). In a sense: dreaming provides a means as to show us how our awareness of experience is an inversion of the true form of being by falsely attributing a lack of awareness as a false truth.
> Ie. you propose a system that purports to explain paradox in ideology as a consequence of material illusion and finite being
I do believe my rebuttal and clarification proves your critique to be inaccurate and unable to prove false my thesis.
> liberated vs non-liberated being, which are both "valid" experiences
Awareness of experience is ego and an interpretation of being; it is not true being.
> The Münchhausen critique holds true even here, unless you actively dismiss it and hold that your system is explicitly true despite its "flaws".
If you would, please again refer to my rebuttal and reaffirm that my thesis is flawed and I will concede as needing refining and strengthening. I do not argue out of ego, but Eros.

>>14720281
I will make one addendum: when a child is born, what is the first thing it feels? A fear. A fear of death.

>>14715879
This. It seems like op is in the model of antithesis.

bump

>>14715537
Bump

>>14715569
the thing is pal that on /lit/ nobody fucking reads; this retard saw the cover and with the overwhelming popularity of the book(ovverated as fuck desu) figured it's an apology of capitalism

>>14715537
stop caring about political systems and start caring about your family and yourself

>>14720291
How do you know that?

>>14722297
oof whata reel 1 rite here goddamn that hit me as hard as cigga-weed

>>14722306
It wouldn’t breathe otherwise.

>>14715537
>Wtf is wrong with me
"The best argument against any ideology is its adherents" (Orwell)

>>14715537
>>14715587
Literally me. I initially believed I was just a contrarian - this is because I "unironically" tend to hate almost everything that is universally liked. But when it comes to politics and philosophy, I think I just have high sensitivity to bias and bad arguments, which leads me to reject anything that isn't argued with utmost rigour and precision. The reason that I end up hopping to the opposite view, unlike what >>14715879 think, isn't that I just "adopt the contrary value", it's that like everybody else I don't like being in a state of cognitive dissonance and look for a stable ground.

The solution I am trying to adopt isn't No Stable Ground, as OP, but rather, a sort of non-postmodernist perspective that our beliefs are the result of some fundamental traits, and we try to justify them by reasoning, logic, facts etc. but in reality they're based on intuition and feeling. People are left or right wing not because economic or political reason, but because of psychological reasons that they justify with economics and politics. This is why reading all arguments leads you to think they are absurd unless you happen to agree with them.

>>14715537
https://discord.gg/hCjX58e

>started by reading left wing philosophy
There's your problem OP. You gotta forget all that shit and start over from universal principles

>>14715537
You are playing gracefully with ideas, it is rare and commendable, good for you. Learn to meditate and go within if you want final answers to things. I believe in you anon.

>>14715537
most people are shit at convincing you so you take an opposite stance. I read mein kampf without any of that "its the devils work" outlook and in the end hitler looked like a moron with unworkable ideas and expectations. I dont want to pump iron till Im 18, never even going to the movies and I want my work to be valued instead of the work of a "dreamer". its easy to dream a flying fortress but is hard to make it into reality. hitler valued the dreamer more because he himself was a dreamer.
>tldr
as an outsider you can always see the authors bias and flaws of the idea that the author does not see or willfully ignores

>>14715622
OH FUCK