Let's Play a Game!

[Anonymous No.19514325]

Since philosophy is an old discipline and anyone who tried to develop their own "philosophy" will inevitably come up with reinvention of old ideas, why not post your "philosophy" here be it metaphysics or ontology and other anon point out which historical philosopher the previous anon described through his writing. For correct guesses, then the anon who posted his "philosophy" should read the "original inventor" of his "philosophy"!

[Anonymous No.19514350]

Actually pretty brilliant thead OP, ngl, good job.
Give me a second to look through my notes anon, I have some ideas but I can't think of them rn, and besides, I don't want to share the best ones here in case I ever wanted to publish my thoughts.

[Anonymous No.19515114]

To live until I die, whether it be a hundred or a thousand years. To live as a force of nature, being for the reason of being.

My "Philosophy" is to live as my traits rather than my person; To live as my ego rather than my perception.

I developed this way of thinking to deal with a mental stress.
Every night, once alone in my thoughts, I would lie irritated with existential anguish. Existence bothered me, for chronology to have no start. I feared the possibility of immortality, to suffer the state of being without end.
I struggled with this until I came to the realization that death and reincarnation are the same phenomenon.
Narratively for a human there is no difference between death and reincarnation, thusly a human should not lead their life in respect to these concepts.
However, it is natural for humans to search for meaning, for conclusion.
Humans are born trapped, seeking finality but fearing death.
As I see it, for a human to truly become immortal they would no longer be human.
So, to live as a human you must not fear what comes after death, but also live knowing death will come to you.
Since the body will perish, and your current life will end('Current' for those who believe in reincarnation), your formed identity, your traits, are your only freedoms; It is the only way for you to act upon the universe as it acts upon you.
A human's pride should lie in the identity they form; Your words will travel farther than your feet, and your ideas will live longer than your mind.

Although, I have come to one conflict within myself. According to my traits I consciously live by a certain cowardess; To live until I die, than to simply live.

[Anonymous No.19515253]

>>19515114
Albert Camus

[Anonymous No.19515410]

>>19514325
Metaphysical structures (sider)
Internal verification (contingency of creation)
Ontological relations
- emanationism (neoplatonists)
Ontological dimensions (I feel very confident nobody has come up w this before)
Like monism dualism trialism quadrilism nihilism pluralism etc

[Anonymous No.19515431]

>>19514325
Perception is the only thing that can be said to exist, matter is incoherent. Since neither time nor space have true existence real change is impossible.

[Anonymous No.19515436]

>>19515431
You mean like solipsism or nihilism or extreme existentialism?

[Anonymous No.19515452]

>>19515253
I have already read l'etranger, what should I read from him next?

[Anonymous No.19515477]

>>19514325
A few of my philosophical ideas.
1. God is real, but that fact should have little to no impact on our thoughts and decisions. Living in this material world means we must think like materialists.
2. Technological development is a good thing, but should be carefully done with attention paid to the social and ecological ramifications of it.
3. Humanity should strive to have as limited a damaging effect on the ecosystems of the world as possible.
4. Capitalism is a destructive force on the world in that it erodes what matters, like culture, families, and national identities. This is a bad thing and needs to be reversed.
5. The emancipation of women is of utmost importance to a society's health.
6. Government should be individualist, but society should be collectivist.

[Anonymous No.19515507]

>>19515477
Pure, unadulterated cringe. I hope this is bait but knowing the state of this board I think it is sincere.

[Anonymous No.19515511]

>>19515507
Why is it cringe? Literally all of those were sincere.

[Anonymous No.19515547]

>>19515477
None of those are properly philosophical ideas. They're more political meanderings

[Anonymous No.19515555]

>>19515547
...What more is there to philosophy beyond politics?

>Nature of life, etc.
That is the job of religion and science

[Anonymous No.19515611]

>>19514325
I don't have my own philosophy yet but lately I've come the realization that freedom and liberty are meaningless terms for nothing else than free will wich it's already something we can't get rid off so maybe instead of caring about freedumbs we should strive to create conditions wherein we can at least use it without dehumanizing each other in the process
I know is nothing deep o revolutionary but has anyone written about the stupidity of discussing freedom?

[Anonymous No.19515979]

>>19514325
god is not real but religion is necessary for an ordered society

[Anonymous No.19516698]

>>19514325
Assuming everything is made of indivisible parts we can capture them into categories that have a description. These categories can overlap. Some can pose threats to the integrity of other categories. If these threats are realized they are real and if they are feigned they are illusory. If a subcategory is a real threat to its parent category it's the avatar of said parent category. Those categories that have mechanisms of maintaining their integrity are known as alive. A parent category always has more information than its subcategories so being consumed by its avatar is really more of a change of shape. A subcategory never knows whether it's an avatar because it has less information than the parent. This leaves it with a choice of game-theoryesque strategy between assuming it's an avatar and sustaining its survival.

[Anonymous No.19516767]

>>19515555
>circumscribing philosophy entirely to the practical realm of sociopolitical issues
oof.jpg
>That is the job of religion and science
Science is the realm of empirically attested knowledge of the physical, while all metaphysical aspects of knowledge deducted or inferred beyond that are philosophical by definition.
Religion is itself a manifestation of theological beliefs, where Theology is literally a subset topic within Philosophy.

This has to be a shitpost.

[Anonymous No.19516864]

Old philosophy from when I was 17
Thought engines that lead to suicidal thought are actually wanting to kill off negative traits if you didn't have such traits you'll be happy, the will to death is the will to become better.
The location you live in is due to your virtue and the only way to leave it is to improve your virtue, leaving it without that prerequisite will make you friendless and lonely.

[Anonymous No.19516888]

>>19514325
In short
The 'material' world is more or less a further subset of the immaterial one, bordered in an abstract sense by the cosmic 'choir' composed by God.
Man has an immortal soul, and the brain is like a physical receiver for this soul.
This material world is inherently sinful, but not in a way that mortal men can escape or be blamed for alone, and such a salvation came to us in the form of Christ. It is literally impossible to live without sin, in that it is an unavoidable course of living as mortal, flesh-and-blood creatures.
God gives man inherent gifts, and it is a duty of each man to understand and develop these gifts lest they leave him
Capital, in the sense of a 'money power' is a horrific force which is practically Babylon, or the negative pole that draws things to material existence, manifested by the more specific vices of man.
This same such money force will destroy, corrupt, or ensnare anything which could compete with or directly oppose it save for on the level of extreme, prolonged physical altercation.
Jews are the synagogue of Satan, and a major part in the evermarching orchestra of locusts which compose the human side of capital.
It is impossible for man to build a utopia, and he should not strive to do so, as man is inherently imperfect and will only wreak havoc for his attempts to recreate something handed down by or to reach the level of God, I.E. infinity. This is expressed in the story of the Tower of Babel

[Anonymous No.19517171]

>>19515979
>Carl Schmitt
(Religions often have an opposing "other")
>Political Theology
You may not like his beliefs but, as bluntly as you made your statement, his beliefs best fit.

[Anonymous No.19517184]

>>19514325
I've posted this excerpt in an essay thread, but it fits here as well, so here:
[...]
That fundamental understanding which philosophy seeks will never be arrived at through formalism and logic. By attempting to reduce (human) reality to a system, or a set of systems meant to allow examination, it becomes doomed to a certain form of incompleteness.
Wittgenstein glimpsed this truth and gave us a ladder to climb so we, too, can know it.
Enter here something considered by very few - that it is not the exact lexical, syntactic or even semantic blocks of language that we must look to, but its application.
This is to say, the form of a text, the concepts and ideas it attempts to examine, its use of language, its relationship to other texts, to culture, society, politics, history - all together are the totality of that text, and that is the culmination of language.
Once achieved, this totality transforms the work into a new whole – a higher order of sign/symbol.
If we accept that a text must have some minimum of complexity in order to accurately represent or 'stand for' the idea it examines, it becomes obvious that any major literary work is a philosophical work as well. Not only this, but that the whole body of human literature is signs/symbols being strung together in an attempt to formulate something which would, in the end (if there is an end), stand for all the answers philosophy seeks the same way a text stands for its meaning, as the individual parts of the text stand for theirs, all the way to the very letters.
Whether all of literature would be needed to complete this grand work is impossible to tell, but it can be argued that only certain works (or groups of works) are necessary; we recognize these already, naming them great, genius, classics.
[...]

[Anonymous No.19517245]

To be sexually inattractive is a bad fate but one that is often overlooked. For example, if you're a man and by fate you are forced to marry an ugly woman, there are fate further than procreating with an unattractive member of the opposite sex. First of all, in order for a "family" to be functional, one needs a set of behavior. And one of them in particular is constantly validating the appearance of your partner. Since you're having sex with your partner, it means you cannot describe her as "ugly" when having sex, otherwise you shouldn't be having sex with her. But deep down inside you aren't really attracted to your wife, and you would like to tell the truth, but societal conventions force you to play the role of a husband by force because of your limited choices. So you are forced to tell a lie, lie, lie, lie, more lies until you find your will squashed by reality. Marrying an ugly woman is a form of tyranny because you are not allowed to tell the truth, otherwise the family would fall apart. It is akin to living in a dictatorship where you are forced to concoct lies to please the mighty despot. Maybe only the romantics can truly say an ugly woman pretty for to him horseshit might as well be gold, diametrically opposed to the realist. Thus, it in good fate to everyone, men and women, to have respective partners whom they can say with certainty that their physical attributes are of merit for attraction. Because the basis of romantic attraction is the body and not the soul, for maleness and femaleness are bodily qualities. If romance should seek the virtue of the soul for unity, then the most obvious choice would be non-sexual unity of man with man because very rarely are women with quality of soul matching that of a man.

[Anonymous No.19517717]

bump

[Anonymous No.19518410]

>>19514325
I hope to die laughing. That's all XD

[Anonymous No.19519030]

>>19518410
>XD

[Anonymous No.19519097]

>>19515431
Berkeley/Parmenides

[Anonymous No.19519113]

>>19515979
Dostoyesky but don't tell anyone else

[Anonymous No.19519207]

i always found life pointless when i first started to think about it, i lost my ability to cry when a person died and then i lost all the emotions i felt for the humans. not knowing where do we come from and where are we headed to doesnt bothers me at all because what is the point of knowing everything when we cant even be happy? probably most of us just dont want to step outside of system where we can feel "included" to a society but this will not make you any happier when you just leave everything all behind and try to find your happiness. maybe with your beloved one, maybe by yourself.

we will truly be happy when we start to seize the day.

[Anonymous No.19519291]

Beyond death there is no change, and in this realm there is change. What we call Time or Entropy is only specific to the "Faustian" mythos, but isn't the correct idea of it. Time is just a modality, and one of many modal states of Being. Consequently, death is not the elimination of all, for you existed before and will exist after, and that You that was, was once invoked, thought of, and dreamt in the past, and will be in the future.

Time is quite literally an illusion-- can you verify that a second is a second and a minute a minute? Not without space of course, but time is such a subjective thing that the same minute may feel to you extremely long or extremely short, but the judge of the length shows there is no common notion, neither can you go back and verify that the second was the second-- we just take it as a given.

Your arrival here is the actualization of an invocation-- you have a purpose here of some kind, what it is is beyond me, in the same way that the modality that replaces time beyond death is also beyond me, but it's existence is proved mathematically where often times the answer to an expression is inherent in the equation itself (Symmetric Groups).

When I invoke the Lord, revere a saint or create homologies between the functions of nature and the functions of the Earth, I too will one day be invoked the same way, and consequently too are evil spirits. On this Earth I have an opportunity to Actualize myself, for beyond death that capacity for change is frozen, but your invitation isn't. So make yourself stronger and achieve Apotheosis.

[Anonymous No.19519298]

>>19519291
I expect Bhagavad Gita. Would love to see more.

[Anonymous No.19520782]

>>19514325
Philosophy is for fags.

[Anonymous No.19520981]

>>19517184
Oswald Spengler.

[Anonymous No.19521181]

>>19520782
Bill Nye

[Anonymous No.19521206]

>>19519207
Aristotle

[Anonymous No.19521227]

I read this book and then absorbed it into my very being.

[Anonymous No.19521316]

>>19514325
On property, economics, and busines. I give you an alternative economic theory than capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism, or anything else that has ever been theorized or tried.

FUCK private ownership
FUCK state ownership
FUCK worker ownership

EVERYONE should be completely self employed. No places of business. It will be like returning to the olden days where a blacksmith learned the trade and then proceeded to work on his own.

[Anonymous No.19521335]

>>19521316
This would solve the issue of wage/labor.

>If everyone is self employed, nobody would be working for anyone else thus no surplus value is exploited. Capitalism BTFO’d.
>There would be no state ownership and bureaucracy leading to inefficiencies in the economy. Authoritarian socialism BTFO’d.
>There would be no need for libertarian socialism/anarchism/workplace democracy because there is no workplace. All you BTFO’d
>I could go on and on
I don’t actually believe in this idea, I don’t know if it would be good or not. But I believe I’m the first person to come up with it and would like to see some hardcore economic theory about it.

[Actually Original Idea !ToTe5sTDUs No.19521352]

>>19521316
>>19521335
Just so nobody steals my idea

^^^

[Anonymous No.19521355]

>>19515511
>Why is it cringe? Literally all of those were sincere.
That's what makes it cringe

[Anonymous No.19521626]

>>19521316
>>19521335
I can't even tell who's serious here anymore

[Anonymous No.19522028]

>>19521626
It’s a genuine new idea.

I would like to see the worlds top economists writing theory and debating about it. Since I have just now invented this new hypothetical form of economy, it shall require a name. Any suggestions? Anyone? Since you seem to think it is “not serious” do you care to explain why?

[Anonymous No.19522093]

>>19522028
Its not a new idea, its a petit bourgeois fantasy.

[Anonymous No.19522348]

>>19522093
How?

Explain yourself please. I’m talking about a whole new mode of production.

[Anonymous No.19522363]

>>19518410
>I’ll go with a smile
A true man I see. Rare

[Anonymous No.19522371]

>>19522348
Explain the model in detail then

[Anonymous No.19522388]

>>19522371
There is no state ownership of business.
There is no worker ownership of business
There is no private ownership of business.

There is no business at all. At least not in the capitalist/marxist sense of the word. Marx defines capitalism as private ownership of the means of production in which the owner employs workers based on a system of wage/labor. The wage/labor is his main critique of capitalism as the surplus value the workers creates he does not get to see.

My new theory does not have that problem and is not capitalism nor bourgeois in the true sense of the word. No, bye definition it is not. Nor does it have the same problems that capitalism has. Everyone is self employed, therefore there are no employers and there are no employees. Everyone is self employed and thus there is no surplus value extracted and the individual (who is now both owner and worker) gets to see the full fruits of their labor.

[Anonymous No.19522391]

>>19522371
>>19522388
If anything you could say that communism has been achieved because the worker (not plural) owns the means of production.

I’m telling you, there are a lot of concepts to explore here.

[Anonymous No.19522397]

>>19522388
>>19522391
We are witnessing the birthing of the future economic model of the world. The preamble of our future constitution.

[Anonymous No.19522404]

>The only being in the universe able to create from nothing is Man through his Will, unless one believes in a God such as the one worshiped by the Jews, Christians, Muslims, and Neoplatonists
>Creativity is the product of past learning (perception and memory) filtered through one's mind, beliefs, and preconcieved notions into a medium
>There is no such thing as concrete facts or causality, all things change and flow and truth is unable to be fully percieved by Man in his current state
>Faith is an act of the Will; it is the ability to believe in things beyond the self and properly accept the uncertainty of such an assessment

[Anonymous No.19522438]

Holy shit I’m a fucking genius

Here is another problem self ownership would solve
>in the modern world, it can be hard for people to find work let alone work that is fulfilling and meaningful
>they have to rely on capitalists/employers to accept them out of a large pool of contestants (many of whom will obviously be given priorities over oneself) whether that be because they do not have a college degree or for any other reason
>whereas in this new form of economy I am proposing this will also no longer be a problem as in an economy based on self ownership all it takes to find a career is to give one to yourself. You no longer need a college degree to do what you want to do. You can simply teach yourself whatever skills you need and begin working and perusing your dreams/interests

[Anonymous No.19522476]

My Possibly-Schizo Metaphysics:

The universe (or my perception of it, as that is all I have to go by) seems extremely arbitrary. Why do things work this way when they could just as easily work another way? While it is certain that something exists, why does it seem to be this world, this mind experiencing it?

An answer is impossible, but my best guess is that every possible representation of a reality exists, simply because it can be represented.

Number sequences. For example, Pi is an infinite sequence of numbers. It is not known whether or not it contains every possible sequence of digits, but it is not unlikely that somewhere in its vastness there exists a perfectly ordered representation of every particle in our universe. If not Pi, you can make a up a number sequence (simply counting upwards forever provides every possible sequence)

Is Pi real? Are number sequences real? Probably not in our universe or that we can comprehend, but numbers and logic seem transcendent, so maybe everything is merely mathematical representations of the moments of simulations.

This does lead to a rather strange version of quantum immortality. Presumably, there "exist" infinite realities in which you exist for one reason or another with all of your memories. So, when you die, you presumably simultaneously wake up in every possible afterlife or continued consciousness. This happens simply because a reality in which you exist with all your memories and thoughts is capable of being mathematically represented. Infinite hellish, heavenly, or strange experiences. Forever.

Reality is both the simulation of a god, a stand-alone universe arising from nothing, and whatever else that can be thought of.

Morally, do whatever you want I guess. You are going to heaven and hell anyway. Hope your lucky, and enjoy yourself. Or don't.

[Anonymous No.19522522]

>>19514325
We are controlled by something that forces us to exist for all eternity. We are "souls" trapped in this body and have no say in our fate. Who we are is determined to the body we are in. We are no different than animals in a slaughter house. We will never be free.

[Anonymous No.19522536]

>>19522388
Seems like anarcho-capitalism. Everyone just makes trade agreements between each other that work out to be identical to wages.

"Private ownership of the means of production" is equivalent to a guy doing a bunch of middleman and outsourcing work, which is how company hierarchies work.

How does your "system" enforce everyone "working for themselves"? Some level of trade must occur, otherwise blacksmiths starve and farmers have to make their own tools.

[Anonymous No.19522799]

>>19520981
quite prophetic, I was just about to read him
thanks, anon!