/lit/ - Literature

I'm going to use and abuse a combination of the analytic method, Thomism, and Hegel's system to explain every aspect of existence.

>>5841960
4U

>>5841960
5U

>>5841960
6U

>>5841960
7U

>>5841960
8U

>>5841960
9U

U

10U

>>5841960
11U

11U

12U
>>5842019
FuckU

>>5841960
13U

>>5841960
14U

>>5841960
15U

>>5841960
16U

>>5841960
17U

>>5841960
IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD

IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD
IWISHIWASDEAD

>>5841960
What is it with these people reading Nietzsche and then feeling like they have to post a thousand threads about him?

>>5842054
EBIN!!!

>>5842054

>implying I've even read more than 10 pages by Nietzsche

although, fuck off shitposter, this was a top class humour topic for the first two posts.

>>5842068
>
>imblying replies 2-18 aren't the best of the thread

>>5842068
E

>>5841960
Is this the board for philosophy?
/sci/ doesn't tolerate it very much and /b/ is more of a porn board that has ADHD than anything else.

>>5842068
B

>>5842068
I

>>5842068
N

>>5841960
>Experiencealism
10/10 would be trolled again

>>5841960
nice one, OP, nice one

you have my imaginary approval

Videogamalism

>we are the will to play the game
>each and every human is training in life trying to uncover new experiences gameplay-wise, from studying this world's engines law to creating new assets and so on
>after life is merely that moment where you pass up the controller to someone else, of the billions, maybe trillions, maybe more people plugged into the great gamecube of the universe

More like esotherical stuff I guess

>>5841960
You should name it The Fedora School.
Also, the notion that men are being trained towards self-sacrifice is literally millenias old.
And experientialism is probably the only accepted position in epistemology besides disruptive skepticism.
And that last part, yeah, that's probably silly enough to be OC, but I wouldn't bet on it.

>>5842172
>>5842157
>>5842134
>>5842108
EBIN

>>5842166
OP is a faggot and a shitposter

>>5842291
hey look it's that phil collins guy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAncWDTks9E

>>5842291
>>5842300

Samefag

>>5842300
>>5842291

>being this pathetic

Philosophical technologist. Essentially just using scientific methods and theories to arrive at philosophical conclusions. An example in practice would be ship of Theseus, the solution is objectively that it's not the same ship due to the atoms composing the ship being entirely different and distinct.

A solution only reachable with technical understanding of the constituent and requisite branches of science.

It's something i came up with to describe the way i arrived at proving that the universe exists, demonstrably. Even solving the Gettier problem.

And basically solving all epistemology.

I don't have a degree so who cares though, knowledge is only for the educated.

>>5842300
>>5842291

>tripfag gets called out immediatly by two anons

I love this board

>>5842318
that's retarded in all sorts of ways

>immediatly

i love this board

>>5842388
What is and why?

Anythingism: the doctrine that associating an idea to a noun ending in ism makes it sound more intellectual

Tfwnogfism
Autism

>>5842391
that "solution" to the ship of theseus

it's not clear to me that we would want to call an object different simply because different atoms constitute that object. clouds for instance.

objects lose atoms all the time; every atom changes position at every instant, loses and gains electrons—that's even a basic aspect of a lot of molecular structures. and how exactly do you measure an atom as part of the ship? some distance measure would probably become arbitrary or at least unworkably ambiguous. so on a physical, philosophical, and methodological level this fails right away

>>5842401
>objects lose atoms all the time; every atom changes position at every instant
That's not strictly true at all; atoms are relatively stable in their positions inside a structure.

If i have two lumps of gold of exactly equal atomic size and mass, and smelt them into perfectly identical shapes, i do not have two atomically identical objects. I have two very distinct, separate objects which share similar or identical properties. I have also not lost any atoms, regardless of the vibrations of the constituent atoms and electrons. The same is true for that of the ship.

Ergo, you see my point, when we apply technical understanding of science to philosophy, we answer questions that otherwise cannot be answered.

>>5842412
You can't apply science to philosophy because science is already a part of philosophy. Also science can't prove shit, it can just >imply how things work.

>Distortionism
this is more of an art movement than a philosophical school, but basically the idea is that we as people in the post industrial society in which we live have become shackled to the things we own in a profound and nearly irreparable way. I got the idea when I was looking into a spoon and my face was distorted by the metal. The movement will have 2 goals. Either to completely transcend the materialist hell in which we live or to completely embrace the plastic and become engrossed in our on decadent natures. The separation I think will come mail from the fundamental question, is man innately good or evil. I will speak mainly about how the things which we own distort and change our vevery personalities and what effect that has on our society and our individual psyches.

>>5842433
>You can't apply science to philosophy because science is already a part of philosophy
Philosophy by definition tackles problems outside the realm of science. But in refusing to apply science to problems that have traditionally been defined as outside its realm, we end up running in circles inside a closed loop of ignorance.

As you're doing.

Philosophy contains within it nothing but the questions we have yet to apply the scientific method.

>>5842442
Go on, prove something else. Your ship of theseus proof was inane /v/-tier philosophy, I would be a different person just because my body ate and absorbed a carrot.

>>5842442
>Philosophy by definition tackles problems outside the realm of science
and this is where you're wrong. every branch of the "natural sciences" was originally a part of the study of philosophy, but were one-by-one kicked out of the Philosophy Proper Club™, psychology being the most recent. Stupid enlightenment freaks separating sciences and philosophy.

>>5842412
>That's not strictly true at all; atoms are relatively stable in their positions inside a structure.
counterexample: a cloud

>If i have two lumps of gold of exactly equal atomic size and mass, and smelt them into perfectly identical shapes, i do not have two atomically identical objects. I have two very distinct, separate objects which share similar or identical properties.
according to leibniz's law of indiscernibles those would be the same object

>when we apply technical understanding of science to philosophy
except there's no understand on your part, technical or otherwise

>>5842450
>I would be a different person just because my body ate and absorbed a carrot.
Over time you become a different person, yes. Perhaps you should read up on consciousness permanence and bundle theory, before you try and oppose a demonstrable explanation of a problem you fundamentally do not understand.

Or, perhaps you are simply one of the people who come here and enjoy pretending to be a buffoon as it amuses you somehow to think that someone may be feeling sorry for you, or even intolerant. If that is so, you have my pity.

>>5842442
>Philosophy contains within it nothing but the questions we have yet to apply the scientific method.

What is the meaning of life?
How is subjective experience structured?
What is being?


The expected comeback from your type at this point is "those questions don't mean anything" or something along those lines. To that I'll preemptively answer: don't forget that just because a question doesn't matter or mean anything to you doesn't mean it's not important and worth the time to study for others.

All science can do it build models of the outside world. To assume that those models represent truth or that all phenomenon can and will one day make sense in light of one grand model that science is working toward is a kind of religious fanaticism.

Science builds grids that we can place over things to make sense of them. Take a grid built to make sense of one thing and apply it to something else and it no longer makes sense.

>>5842464
Considering you don't even know something as basic as science being a part of philosophy I don't really think I am the person here who should read up on things.

Bah, scientism.

>>5842462
>according to leibniz's law of indiscernibles those would be the same object.
His law does not apply to this situation, only to situations where all structures are perfectly identical. Two objects of perfectly identical properties do not have to share the same entropic value, or identical arrangement of atoms and electrons. But the ship paradox doesn't touch on this.

Re-read the gold smelting example. Two different sets of atoms can have identical properties without sharing perfectly identical parameters.

>counterexample: a cloud
You've literally just written "A cloud." in response, you'll have to elaborate as to why clouds are fundamentally identical structures.

>What is the meaning of life?
The function of life is to reproduce, meaning as the human brain understands it does not have place in the descriptions of functions of laws of nature.

>How is subjective experience structured?
If you really need an answer to that you need to re-take high school biology.

Something to do with neurons, chemicals and other such things. I wouldn't bother, it'll probably go over your head.

>>5842482
>The function of life is to reproduce, meaning as the human brain understands it does not have place in the descriptions of functions of laws of nature.
I didn't ask about the function of life, I asked about its meaning. Also, isn't shutting, pissing and shit posting a function of life since it's a function that living beings preform?

>If you really need an answer to that you need to re-take high school biology
I'm a university senior a few months away from a degree in genetics. I have a solid grasp of high school level biology.

>Something to do with neurons, chemicals and other such things
You don't understand what I mean by "the structure of subjective experience". You interpreted the question as "the cause of subjective experience".

Pause for a second and reflect on the fact that you are a being that is aware of your existence and your surroundings. Neurobiology tells us the cause of this experience is the brain, but no matter how well you explain the cause you'll never touch on what it's actually like to have a subjective experience.

For example, please propose a way in which you could answer these questions with science:
-what does the sensation of pain feel like?
-what constitutes the feeling of being an aware subject?
-is there any underlying structure to the content of your inner monolog?

Eternalism: historians are liars. History has changed nothing. Everything is as it always was.

Infantilism: we should abandon all art and philosophy and speak to one and other with the innocence and simplicity of children. We should have very few and very simple desires like children have, and be glad for everything.

>>5842494
>"the structure of subjective experience".
The brain.

"What is the structure of the information of a HDD" it's the electromagnetic indentations on the disk, apply that logic to the human brain and there's your answer.

> I asked about its meaning.
I told you that meaning is a nonsensical thing to force on a function, this is a position shared by quite nearly every scientist on the planet. What is the meaning of the sun? What is the meaning of gravity? And you anticipated that response and attempted to dissuade it by mocking it in parody. Which is very reflective of your poor ability to comprehend complex problems.

>Neurobiology tells us the cause of this experience is the brain, but no matter how well you explain the cause you'll never touch on what it's actually like to have a subjective experience.
I'm having one right now, so i objectively do.

>-what does the sensation of pain feel like?
A function by which the brain of an animal or structure releases signals dissuading and discouraging a particular sensation being transmitted by its senses.
>-what constitutes the feeling of being an aware subject?
Awareness is constituted by sensation or comprehension. Without these you are essentially an amoeba.
>-is there any underlying structure to the content of your inner monolog?
Yes. Are you literally retarded?

>>5842318
>Philosophical technologist. Essentially just using scientific methods and theories to arrive at philosophical conclusions. An example in practice would be ship of Theseus, the solution is objectively that it's not the same ship due to the atoms composing the ship being entirely different and distinct.

You completely missed the point of that paradox didn't you?

>>5842499
>historians are liars
In one sense, but not another.
"The Roman Empire broke apart" <--is this a lie?

>Everything is as it always was
I don't see how this is the case in any sense. In fact, I'd take the opposite stance, that everything changes.
When we fight wars we fight with guns, is this as it always was?
When we socialize we often do it over the internet, is this how it always was?
The advance of the scientific/materialistic worldview is causing many people to turn atheistic, is this as it always was?

>we should abandon all art and philosophy and speak to one and other with the innocence and simplicity of children. We should have very few and very simple desires like children have, and be glad for everything.
why and how?

>>5842524
Poes law, buddy.

People like you are the reason this website has devolved into a slurry of inane ramblings and shitposting.

>>5842508
Scientism is a cage worth the thought effort to free yourself from.

The art of model making is just that, you don't actually touch reality.

>-is there any underlying structure to the content of your inner monolog?
>Yes. Are you literally retarded?
I didn't ask you to answer the questions themselves, I asked you to propose a way in which science could answer them.

>>5842546
Are you implying that your original post was irony and I didn't get it or that its difficult to distinguish that whether my response is irony or not?

>People like you are the reason this website has devolved into a slurry of inane ramblings and shitposting.
My reply was on topic and contributed to the discussion, I'm not sure how that contributes to any imagined devolution of this board you may have.

>>5841960
Your philosophies are all retarded and laughable so I think they could be quite successful, especially on /lit/

>>5842575
You are all retarded an laughable, so I think you could be quite successful, especially on /lit/

Since you guys are all more versed in Philosophy than I am, I was wondering if there are any similar philosophies to this: questioning of what the Self actually is vs. what is just biological (assuming a Self).

Because I'm a crazy person, I've grown to distinguish some of my own thoughts as not truly my own, and this has made me question what thoughts at all are my own. For example, I used to be very socially anxious to the point I could hardly function. I analyzed this and decided there was no good reason to fear social situations, and so I would simply stop being afraid. Now, despite this, I sometimes still do get frightful. Not just of body, but of mind. I think thoughts that feel more like a flight response, real thoughts that just come in from the ether. Involuntary. I'm still thinking them, they contribute to the inner monologue, but are those thoughts really part of me? Or is it just ingrown, biological response stuff? Now, of course, some would argue that everything we think is just biology and there is no self and we're organic robots with no will and stuff, but at that point all philosophy becomes moot.

There are better examples, but they're more personal and dumber or whatever. Still, I think that gets the idea across. Just because one is thinking something doesn't necessarily mean it's something one actually thinks or believes. Or even is thinking. Not "DO I think X?" but "Do I, the Self, think X, rather than something else think it for me?". I don't know what a something else necessarily means, but my own life has caused me to question what things I truly think or feel. Because it seems like most ways people talk about the Self assumes either there is no Self, or the Self is just everything you are internally, and I don't like either. It's kind of left me in a No-Man's Land. You can think things without really thinking them. Feel things without really feeling them.

So, that's sort of what my personal ramblings would look like. Since nothing is original, I'm assuming the idea has been done to death by people better at expounding their own ideas than I, and whoever those people are would interest me.

>>5842172
The last one is basically baudriaurdian hyper reality

So yeah its stupid enough to be real

>>5842765
That's actually a pretty interesting question. Philosophy of self is a pretty big topic with lots of weird answers though

>>5842765
biology produces the self. .

>Now, of course, some would argue that everything we think is just biology and there is no self and we're organic robots with no will and stuff, but at that point all philosophy becomes moot.

>>everything we think is just biology means there is no self
Who told you this? It doesn't make any sense.

>>5842800
Buddhists believe that there is no self

>>5842800
There's no ephemeral "Self", is what I mean. I personally don't understand how one can go full materialist and then still believe pholosophy matters, when it's just the natural course of things. Your biology, dictated by your conception, dictated by the ancestry of life on earth, dictated by the first cause, dictates your thought process. The universe is nothing but one physics problem waiting to be solved. That's Laplace's Demon shit.

I feel like expounding on anything past "everything is determined by the laws of physics, including one's own thoughts" necessarily makes any sort of introspection of the capital S Self moot (I realize I didn't capitalize in that sentence). Inevitable pointlessness and extremely assumptuous. People say that there's nothing more to us than biology (which is subset to physics, subset to maths), yet still go on about things despite all that now being moot.

Now, like I said, I'm not well read. Maybe people have said why philosophizing matters (or take the cop out of 'well, I have no free will, so I had to'), but I don't see how one could do so logically. I know recent philosophy likes to eschew logic, but there's usually some sort of thread within those philosophies to follow.

To my knowledge, the Self can only be known and actualized within the Self. Maybe that's only within specific philosophies. Again, I'm not well read. I just feel like, if we take a deterministic, materialistic approach to things, that the personal experience of the Self becomes very strange. Clearly, we experience our own existence as being free and independent and known only to us, but this would all be untrue if maths were all that was needed to make the "self" totally known to all. We experience the Self, but we have to ponder why we experience at all in the first place, and then why we experience things the way we do where one would come to the conclusion of free will despite it not being so. I'm not a mind-body dualist necessarily, but my whole question in the first place is moot if there's nothing to the Self.

I guess my thoughts are that, of course biology dictates our thinking, but some of that thinking feels more authentic to me. Some of it is sort of like this oddly personal Behaviorism. I can see it, I'm even thinking and feeling it, but it's separate from what I consider to really be me. Like some parts of the mind are not part of the inner Self.

Like when a woman's biological clock goes off and she thinks she needs a baby. She's thinking those thoughts. Pondering. Wondering. But is her Self thinking those thoughts? Has her Self come to believe those thoughts to be her own? Are they part of the Self or not? If a woman decided that, despite thinking she wanted a child, and feeling that strongly, that that wasn't what she really believed, would she be right, or would she be a crazy person fighting against their own mind?

What is the Self vs. what is just ambient thought, and how can we tell the difference? Is there one?

>Fitzcarraldian Ethics
A quasi-mystical ethical theory that purports to be capable of producing the perfect narcissistic artist-philosopher, a demi-god of reason and sensuality, by compounding two mysterious entities termed "the Florentine Prince" and "the April Fool" into the elusive and enigmatic being known as "Juan Fitzcarraldo".
>mfw I'm actually working on this

modern naturalism- the idea that man is by definition an extension of nature and the whole natural vs manmade discussion is therefore irrelevant. I will also use this framework to talk about how man has evolved to a point where we can take evolution into our own hands and speed or slow it as we wish using technology. Therefore, morally, technically, and ecologically man can in a sense do no wrong as whatever the consequences of what we do the actions we perform are inherently the next logical and necessary step in the chain of events that began with the first microbiotic life and will end in our self inflicted Armageddon

>>5843061
>no one wants to know about the Fitzcarraldian Ethics.

Not that I would actually tell you guys. The Anti-Juan is strong with you.

>>5843094
How original, man

>>5843332
Tell me about Juan. Why does he wear the mask.

>>5843652
The April Fool: irony, reason, and will
The Florentine Prince: engagement, expression, aesthetic "morality"

I can say no more. And what's this about a mask? I said nothing about a mask.

>>5842765
Here's a potential view:
all the thoughts going around your head are just biology, telling you to want this or that, or run away from something, BUT you get to choose whether or not you're going to follow them, and that's where the Self resides. Not in the 'matter' of thoughts, but in 'action', the decision-making role. Like a judge following law (reason) to deal with cases (situations) that come to him.

Now I'm guessing that this kind of thinking does not really float these days, but I guess that you could still consider it.

>>5843740
Unless you have some meaningful concept of action and agent that doesn't just reduce again to biological processes I've got a name for your theory: Incoherentism.

Metaphysical pluralism. Everything in the universe is different from everything else. That's what I believe.

>>5843740
>Get to choose
>All thoughts are Biology

So the Self doesn't even think? I see what you're saying, but with a fully biological view it just doesn't work. The choosing is a pantomime game in the face of the natural robot that we supposedly are.

The Self being outside of the thoughts of the mind is interesting though, to think about. I don't know if that's really what you meant by the Self, but it's interesting. A sort of existential singularity of being that lays at the heart of one's own existence.

I guess if you tear away at the Self, like I've been writing about, that would necessarily boil down to "none of your thoughts are PART of the Self directly". It's something I've been toying with, but I've kind of wanted to keep some of my thoughts my own. I want to feel like every Self is different, but that can only be true if there are properties of the Self aside from being the Self. If everything else simply arises from the Self, or around it, then the Self of all people would necessarily be identical in its existence (aside from being its own individual Self).

Probably sounds incoherent as fuck. It seems sort of like the way Natural Law folks reconcile how morality can vary by culture (all cultural morality revolves around base natural virtues/base human nature). People are so clearly different in what they believe, how they believe, what they think, etc, but this is all biological variance that affects how the Self interacts with the world around it. So, fundamentally, people are connected by the existence of a personal, yet universal, Self.

Wait, this is a fucking soul argument isn't it. Well, I followed the rabbit where it went.

>>5842765
This is the way I think of anthropology.
>Body: The physical aspect of human existence
>Mind: The mental aspect of human existence
>Self: The identity the mind constructs for itself
>Subject: The mind as it exists without the self
>Personality: The identity the mind constructs for itself and the mannerisms that identity displays through bodily actions

>>5843994
>The Self being outside of the thoughts of the mind

Kant for example says that our perceptions are structured by our mind, and thus all we ever encounter are ultimately our perceptions (phenomena), while the things-in-themselves, which supposedly exist 'out there', are beyond our reach. Now, he adds time and space as the basic level of structuring that our mind adds to the input data, thus creating an interesting conclusion: the relations between things in space and time (most importantly causation) are our mind's interpretation, and we have no reason to assume that they are at work out there (or at least how we envision them). We cannot know what actually is. This creates a window of possibility for free will, since our self is a thing-in-itself (noumenon) as well, and thus is ultimately not necessarily bound to other things by causation.

>>5844078
personality is a central concept in my Fitzcarraldian Ethics, but I understand it quite differently.

>>5844087
How do you understand it?

>>5842765

L A C A N
A
C
A
N

I think life is all about dreaming and you must believe in yourself and keep working towards your ultimate goal although when your old and alone and failed in that goal life can seem pretty shit. But then anyone without the effort , willpower, drive etc to attain their goals are genetically inferior so should just die anyway

>>5844096
Thank you! I'd really like to look more into this, so thanks.

>>5844084
Very interesting. Reminds me of Descartes. Is this how Kant justifies his whole "Kingdom of Ends" thing? Regardless, I find the way he looks at perception to be pretty interesting.

Thanks.

>>5844137
I also think homo-sexes should be allowed to marry but not adopt. I know edgyyyy but I feel strongly about it

>>5844096
>"The child is able to recognize themselves in a mirror prior to the attainment of control over their bodily movements. The child sees their image as a whole and the synthesis of this image produces a sense of contrast with the lack of co-ordination of the body, which is perceived as a fragmented body. The child experiences this contrast initially as a rivalry with their image, because the wholeness of the image threatens the child with fragmentation—thus the mirror stage gives rise to an aggressive tension between the subject and the image. To resolve this aggressive tension, the child identifies with the image: this primary identification with the counterpart forms the Ego."

This and the other/Other stuff is fascinating. Are babies at the point of The Real before this? "The Real" seems to be that Self removed from all else. As I suspected, there are no original thoughts.

I will combine Islam and Taoism succesfully.

>>5844198
wtf Tao Lin has his own religion?

>>5842481
a cloud is a counterexample to your claim that
>atoms are relatively stable in their positions
inside a structure.
with relation to position, energy level, etc. they aren't, and define "relatively"; although ultimately this is irrelevant

>in response, you'll have to elaborate as to why clouds are fundamentally identical structures.
i didn't say anything about them being fundamentally identical or talk about their structures. one can point at a cloud at some time A and five seconds later point at the cloud again at time B and people will know what you're talking about; this isn't an incoherent notion. but the cloud at time A will have undergone changes, lost and gained molecules, and the arrangement will be totally different.
the same could be said of basically anything. you could know everything about every atom and molecule in the ship of theseus at time A and time B and still not answer the ship of theseus paradox because that's not what the paradox is about.

>Re-read the gold smelting example. Two different sets of atoms can have identical properties without sharing perfectly identical parameters.
you'll have to clarify whether you want to talk about the qualities of the atoms or of the system that the atoms make up. you keep going back and forth. entropic value or whatever is a quality of the system, position within the object is a quality of an atom; information known about a system can be construed as a quality of a system, etc.

>>5844140
It's kind of fuzzy to me, but I'll try:
He justifies it by stating that our perceived world is not just random perceptions coming in, but perceptions + the framework of reason, which is a part of the self's view. Reason is also universal - we all ultimately have the same powers of reasoning (although we might not utilize them in the same way). Also, he says that for a judgement to be truly ethical, it has to be disinterested in our situation - separated from our wishes and interests (separated from the world of perceptions), and also has to be universal. Since reason is universal and also a fixed point, separated from our interests, he looks to it as a basis for ethics. So, to rise above the causal world and utilize our freedom and rationality, we should ask what would the world be like if our actions + ends were to be universal? Do we want such a world? If not, then we should not do it. For example - do we want humans to be treated as ends or just as means to an end? If we want humans to be treated only as a means to an end, then we also want ourselves to be only treated as a means to an end. Also, the meaning of duty - it would be useless to talk of ethics if we were to follow the described laws only some of the time. The only ethical way is to follow it all of the time - to act out of duty to it.

This gives one the ability to choose - does he stay in the circle of causality, or does he embrace his freedom and rationality through ethics?

>>5844264
In some weird way, Kant, of all people, sounds like a forerunner of existentialism. I wonder if that's because of my interpretation or if there's actually something to it.

>>5842765
I only skimmed your post, but you tapped into the problem of the "self". Some philosophers criticize the notion of self as too atomistic i.e. existing independently and as an homogeneous unity. Some even deny the notion completely, saying that we are an assemblages of different biological, historical, social "forces".
From that point of view when you're experiencing some thoughts as foreign something like this happens: multiple mental "forces" clash and influence one another, but only some of them take the position of "consciousness" i.e. they reflect themselves and this is what you call "the self", which is thus always in flux: consciousness is type of a role or a position, but it has no inherent content. Reflective forces feel (the content of) other forces hitting or influencing them, such as desires or repressed memories, so there's a general sense of otherness because of that.
But if the notion of the self becomes to powerful it leads to a schizoid experience where there appears an absolute opposition between the conscious part and that part that is hitting upon it. These two parts are merely structural, they have no fixed content, but what is problematic is that the relation here takes the form of an absolute opposition and you become paranoid with the idea there is some other "self" in you since you construct another identity out of that opposition.

>>5844300
This is exactly kind of where I am. Thanks for the post. I suppose it is problematic, though I still think there is some merit to questioning the validity of one's own thoughts being one's own. I just don't know how to go against the belief of a Self, since I guess I'm just very invested in not believing that we're all so completely molded by things outside us that there ceases to be an "I".

>>5844175

I spent a lot of time coming up with a reply, I wasn't really sure what you meant by original thought. And I think it's possible that you aren't, either.

You think in language and language isn't something you're born with so yeah, there's nothing completely 'untouched' in you, if that's what you're looking to say

but any train of thought that has you end up with something you didn't know before is an original thought. thinking is, above all, a mechanism.

i think possibly what you mean by 'original thought' is more in the vein of original 'preferences', or maybe opinions. If you can't justify to yourself why you're feeling a certain way about something and this leaves you feeling alienation/dissociation, try analysing the thing, try writing about it, try to be rigorous. If you're feeling that you should have an opinion on something and you don't, consider the possibility that this is completely okay.

>>5842300

>>5844361
I see what you're saying with the "preferences" thing. I've had my own sort of personal reasons for venturing into this abstract dissociation of self from Self. No matter how much I think about it, and no matter who I talk to, I never seem to get an answer. With some things, I don't care to question too hard, or if I do, I am satisfied with my beliefs (and with those being part of my Self), but there is just a fundamental schism within me that I cannot reconcile and anyone who's gone through this that I've met either never thought to question themselves or are at the same place I am. Anyone who was once where I am and then left never has a satisfactory answer.

But thanks. Perhaps "thinking hard enough" just doesn't always get us where we want, but I just don't like the sound of that. Maybe I should be fine with ambiguity of certainty.

>>5844335
The solution is to affirm that you are always different to whatever you think you are at the moment, and in this way moving away from creating an opposition or another identity inside you.
Think of it like this: you are *different* drives (multiple desires, talents, powers, memories, etc...). The paranoia appears when you start taking those differences for *oppositions* and thinking of them as having some intentions against each other, which they don't since by themselves they are not even at the level where they could form some identity or where they could reflect themselves and each other in their singularity. You only do that in a very very very self-conscious state, which isn't healthy in large doses.
If nothing else, distract your own self by staying engaged in something i.e. "lose your-self" in something, as they say.

A few philosophers that might interest you, in order of immediate usefulness and readability:
Nietzsche
Heidegger
Spinoza
Deleuze

>>5844408
Thanks. You're presenting a lot of things I hadn't really thought about too much, and I think I will try and read up more. A Self that is more capable of flux, rather than being a consistent entity, makes sense. If I get what you're saying.

>>5841960
Baudrillard already did that and he called it the Simulacra

all consciousness exists in the minds of other consciousnesses, free will can only be present when two or more conscious systems exists side by side and experience each other, on theyre own people are mechanical

Wilsonianism.
Frienship isn't allowed.
You don't want them.
Large size is universal beauty.

>>5841960
Life is the epitome of mediocrity and one must attempt not to care and to live ones life slightly outside of it. Life will constantly try to real you in with both temptations (Eg. a new Album from a band you enjoy) and Stresses (Eg. a family member dying) in order to make you care and smother you in itself. But you cannot exist without it for life is meaningless without input. The only thing to do is to accept what happens and not to get butthurt. Take all you can out of the story that is your life for it may be the only story you get. Feel the eyes of time upon the back your head and know that no time can be wasted and yet it must be in order to reach the things that we want. You must exist in a state of opposites caring and not caring in order to take what Life offers

>>5845206
>Want

Isn't anything we'd want end up being a temptation somehow in this system?

>>5842172
lol you should look into Alexander Bard if you think OP has ever had a single original idea in his useless life.

>>5845206
You, I like you.

Euphoricism - Scientism with the view that all pleasure must come from the contemplation of scientific and mathematics concepts.

>>5845236
Yes, but one must recognize it and then go on to say fuck you life I'm going to enjoy it anyway.

The absurd duality is important

A disconnect of the ego from one's life is the main theme here.

>>5844198
nigga thats North Indian Sufism.

Ism - the belief in pure ideology

>>5845321
Nice

>>5841960
>disposabilism

Lel, /r9k/: the philosophy

>>5842047
>Not "IWISHIWEREDEAD"
learn 2 subjunctive you filthy pleb

functionalism - the universe is a functional simulation to solve a problem (all physical laws and quantities conspire as to be quantized in scale and resolution), and the meaning of life, the meaning of existence is to solve whatever they're trying to solve in that simulation.

So what's the most pressing, actually the only concern for a fully evolved intelligence -- keeping in mind humans are a weak early stage of the simulation.

Heat death

>>5844094
Personality is active expression modified by unconscious factors. But it actually gets a little more complicated than that, and it refers to a specialized "personality" which is really just an aspect of the Florentine Prince.