/lit/ - Literature

>>18443478
start with langan

>>18443478
descrates said the same thing, read descartes meditations

Posting a pic of Sam Hyde with the name "whiteboysummer.png" tells me all I need to know. There is no hope for you, you are ngmi. I'm sorry.

>>18443478
Mathematics maybe, I don't know either.

I look at myself in the mirror too and I say to myself, "I don't know".

Where is the truth? Where is the foundation that we can rest and build ourselves on?

>>18443492
But when the ontological argument falls you're left inside res cogitans with no way out.

>>18443478
>I never took time to think them out so I can't be sure if they are even true
You've been assimilated into the internet hive mind, the collective echo chamber that constantly affirms your beliefs as correct. Because your echo chamber told you so, you never thought to question your beliefs because this would mean upsetting the hive mind, and therefore having people do the worst thing imaginable: DISAGREE with you.

In all seriousness, just look at the world outside of people's popular opinion and decide what is most logically beneficial to you and those around you. That's it. Anything outside of that is just bullshit because emotion is behind it, not logic, knowledge, or rationality. It's hard for humans to be rational, so don't be hard on yourself, this is the first step.

>>18443495
please dont leave me. I literally wont be able to do anything unless I get this figured out

You are blind as nature, enjoy.

>>18443522
Basically this >>18443522

We have to step out of our social media tribes and experience real life again, once we do this, we will begin to see the truth for what it really is.

I have wasted my youth being on the Internet and I can attest to the fact, that it has made me dumber, along with my persistent binge-drinking and gaming.

We have to get away from this, all of us, if we are to persevere.

>>18443478
>religious
Do you believe or do you not? I don't understand those who claim to believe or disbelieve on logical grounds. In my experience anyway it was never really a choice, and no logical argument could make me believe in God for the simple reason that...
>politcal
... most rationalizations and justifications are fallacious for any position and ultimately arbitrary. Read Hume. You want to believe something that makes you feel good, then you work around that with sophistry of greater or lesser degrees (depending on how much of a how much of a spongebrained normie you are).
I would encourage you to seek out what you consider to be beautiful and righteous around you and pursue that, tautology be damned. If you're unsure right now then just read more and dwell on it and you'll come up one way or another.

>>18443522
Meant to point toward >>18443517

>>18443478
Just for OP
I don’t want to hear the butthurt

>>18443497
im not saying he ought to do exactly as descartes does but its a good character study on how to go on living after realizing everything you previously knew is wrong

>>18443570
thank you

>>18443490
to expand on this, Christopher Langan, in his theory of everything (the CTMU), offers a belief system which explains the full nature of reality in consistent and relatively easy-to-understand terms resting on nothing but the most ironclad logical and mathematical principles possible. if you are actually a person who is searching for some kind of absolute truth or higher meaning then the CTMU is one hundred percent the best place to start. it's either that or read thousands of pages of philosophy and esotericism to get to roughly the exact same conclusions which would probably not be nearly as organized and coherent of a system as the one which you would find in the CTMU. check the archives for resources. i hope i'm not wasting my time here.

>It has been written that God is dead. This might more accurately have been written about faith. Mankind is creating an increasingly complex and mechanized world, and the essence of complexity and mechanism is not faith, but logic. So the time for a logical approach to theology is nigh. Accordingly, the CTMU does not begin with a preconceived definition of God; rather, it determines within the extended logical structure of reality how the properties most often attributed to God are logically related, reserving the title for the relationship actually educed. In this way, it avoids the circular, faith-driven explanations to which religion so often resorts, and at which science so often revolts. And meanwhile, by eliminating the barrier between subjective and objective reality, it permits recognition of the subjective dimension of the universe as a whole…the dimension by virtue of which the universe can truly be described as “the Mind of God.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20170212160547/http://www.megafoundation.org:80/CTMU/Articles/Nexus.html

>>18443715
Panpsychism mark #92374.

It's 2021, you're either racist or søy, all other political stances develop from that foundation, and there's no wavering on that question, because it's already obvious to yourself which it is. But I can't rec books until I know.

>>18443715
>Langan's support of conspiracy theories, including the 9/11 Truther movement (Langan has claimed that the George W. Bush administration staged the 9/11 attacks in order to distract the public from learning about the CTMU) and the white genocide conspiracy theory, as well as his opposition to interracial relationships, have contributed to his gaining a following among members of the alt-right and others on the far right.[10][11] Journalists have described certain of Langan's Internet posts as containing "thinly veiled" antisemitism[10] and making antisemitic "dog whistles".[11]

B-b-based.

>>18443478
>>18443715
>This may sound harsh, but I hope that everyone understands whence it comes. Humanity is in crisis (you might not be able to see it, but it's upon us); a new and more powerful worldview / logico-spiritual ideology is desperately required; false prophets who stand up and claim, explicitly or implicitly, to have the metaphysical insight and expertise to craft this ideology are highly dangerous; and the medium is supersaturated with such people, making it impossible for their betters to get a word in edgewise. Examples are not exactly unavailable. A few of them have been mentioned here. We have little Keith Raniere of NXIVM fame, bankrolled by billionaires and claiming to be the "Vanguard". We have Alex Jones claiming to be the "Tip o' the Spear", alternately holding forth like Moses come down from the Mount and bellowing like a bull. We have "world's best philosopher" Stefan Molyneux pushing for rational atheism. And we even have the relatively innocuous Jordan Peterson, who seems to think and behave something like an early 20th century existentialist determined to synthesize a new worldview out of spit, chewing gum, and a little pop psychology. Note that all of these people claim to be "outsiders", true outliers, even though they have college degrees, businesses, and millions of dollars in their various accounts (Stefan perhaps being the exception). I very much doubt that any of them knows what it's like on the very bottom, sweating and skinning his knuckles and scrabbling among the rocks to eat, yet they claim to speak for those who do. Let's not pretend that this isn't a problem. If a mass of people is headed off a cliff, and someone is standing away from the cliff beckoning them to safety, but they can't hear him over the din of others who don't know where the hell they're going, but who are gesticulating wildly and shouting at the tops of their lungs anyway, that's a bad situation. A case in point: I was recently asked to give my opinion on Jordan Peterson, and when I did - politely and with due credit, though with a couple of mild critiques - I had Peterson fanboys crawling out of the woodwork threatening me with the infinite metaphysical depth and power of "the Master". None of them knew anything about me, and I was trolled and insulted as I've been trolled and insulted a thousand times before. What is it about these people, and this environment, that encourages them to squander the time and energy of others who have produced far more than they?

>>18443886
>Make no mistake, I'm not competing with any crowd of fashionable pundits. It's beneath the dignity and necessity of my work. It is up to these people, if they are as benign and helpful to humanity as they claim to be, to help any REAL outsider who produces the answers they claim to possess. Yet they have made no attempt whatsoever to locate or acknowledge the existence of such a person. It's all about them, you see. Meanwhile, the sheep go "Baaaa!", the cows go "Moooo!", and the pundits laugh all the way to the bank. Naturally, I'm as fed up with this as some of you are. As grateful as I am to God Almighty for giving me this life and allowing me to live it, I'm tired of having my face spat in by people inhabiting a world that is lucky to have someone like me in it under the circumstances its human inhabitants have created ... very lucky indeed. And naturally, I'm concerned about the prospects of such a world, in which, despite my decades-long efforts to spread the Word, I always seem to end up with the short end of a stick that has been latched onto by the clenched, slavering jaws of a pack of hungry, growling, self-obsessed rottweilers.

>>18443886
Langan hasn't produced anything of note. His system is B grade Hegel for STEMfags. He thinks because he is a particularly cantankerous crank who retook the IQ test until he aced it, he should be given control over the global eugenics program. If he were really that much of a troublesome gadfly, the elites would have offed him. His projection here about mediocrities with a messiah complex is pretty funny though.

>>18443886
Langan's never really provided any good reason to differentiate himself from all the others, although I respect him for at least possessing the insight to see the necessity of logical theology and authoritarianism. It's a shame he refuses to see the necessity and value of traditional theology.

>>18443912
Langan is a lot more intelligent than Hegel. He belongs closer to Kant than Hegel.

>Langan hasn't produced anything of note. His system is B grade Hegel for STEMfags. He thinks because he is a particularly cantankerous crank who retook the IQ test until he aced it, he should be given control over the global eugenics program. If he were really that much of a troublesome gadfly, the elites would have offed him. His projection here about mediocrities with a messiah complex is pretty funny though.

>>18443912
imagine seething this hard. langan has achieved more and is more well known and popular than you will ever be no matter what you do, pseud : )

>>18443969
Kant deduced galaxies and the accretion disk model. What has Langan contributed?

>>18443997
He's only popular with certain people because of the novelty of an alt right """super genius""", when he's like 130 at most. You can't even defend his shitty system and he's done nothing besides.

>>18443998
The CTMU, which deduces the entire universe a priori.

>>18444015
As I remember it, it relied on cognitive science and wheeler's participatory universe. How are they a priori?

>>18443517
agreed

>>18443478
Let momentum itself be your calendar. In a world of machines, the last thing we really own is our so called irrationality, which is the last, the first, and the only 'true' thing. Ask yourself, and you will never get a satisfactory answer. Give yourself a closed problem, and of course you will comprehend it. What's the distance between the shoulder and elbow? Could be this or that. You have five fingers on each hand; 5+5 = 10. Do you actually understand this? People are like leaves on a path. Sometimes they stay, other times you must sweep them off. Other times, you have no broom. Sometimes, you don't even recognize they are there.

>>18443478
Faggot you are born the spread the 14 words.
Why? Because i say so.

>>18443478

Greeks. Assimilate what you read, don't just read the words without getting the meaning.

>>18443969
big doubt