/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17837245]

thoughts on this? it's fucking me up. I don't know much about heidegger so I'm posting here

[Anonymous No.17837257]

>>17837245
Ultimate Blackpill
Ultimate Cope

All living is is coping

[Anonymous No.17837292]

what if it's the society that is the broken tool, what if the very community that he proposes will fix the problem that breaks the tool? i'm unconvinced.

[Anonymous No.17837299]

>>17837292
>what if it's the society that is the broken tool

[Anonymous No.17837302]

>>17837245
I don’t really have any books to add here but only to say, I agree and I’ve personally experienced this in my own life. I don’t agree that it’s not genetic. I don’t think it’s explicitly genetic but I do think there’s a nature and nurture thing going on there. I also don’t agree that it’s something which responds to an obscene amount of therapy or meditation. I actually think those are mostly worthless. A certain degree of an ascetic disposition for a time was helpful for me but real shift in mode of being came as a transition from present at hand to ready to hand. It’s something like turning work into play, but obviously, I’m still on 4channel so it would be a lie to say I’ve really integrated any of this. In fact, I’m probably worse right now than I’ve been in the past.

[Anonymous No.17837304]

twitterposting

[Anonymous No.17837339]

>>17837245
whoever wrote that needs to read some zen literature and chill the fuck out

[Anonymous No.17837341]

>>17837302
this post is like riding with a friend listening to him tell a story when you suddenly realize he's driving down a one way street.

[Anonymous No.17837369]

Wikipedia/youtube understanding of Heidegger that uses one small subset of buzzwords from Heidegger's much greater point on authenticity and his critique of das Man to make the polar opposite point of the one Heidegger made consistently throughout his entire life, which is that "flowing" along with das Man is not only ugly and awful, it's culturally and politically dangerous for essentially the same reasons that Marx and the Frankfurt School critiqued reification under capitalism as dangerous.

Somehow this nobody tranny manages to showcase a dilettantish understanding of Heidegger, a complete misunderstanding of Heidegger, AND a misunderstanding of the position he is presumably trying to adopt (anti-incel, anti-right wing elitism etc), since neither Heidegger nor the author of "The Jargon of Authenticity" would recognise his own views in this ugly assessment. The only positive position the (tranny) author seems to hold is pro-status quo for the sake of status quo. Even the Marxists didn't write apologetics for das Man, they just critiqued Heidegger's solution. This may be the first person in history retarded enough to hold the philosophical position that doxa is inherently good because people immersed in doxa are chill.

Philosophy was literally born with the rejection of doxa qua doxa. This person is not only consciously embracing doxa but capitalist techniques of pathology and therapy designed to meta-reify those fortunate enough to still rebel from doxa. No leftist or rightist would recognise this position, and bourgeois are already "flowing" reflexively, and so do not need to recognise anything one way or another (in the wikipedia-derived philosophical pidgin of the author, everything is always already zu-handen for them, including despising incels and other misfits). This person is trying to theorise being non-theoretically bourgeois.

You know what else is totally chill all the time and goes with the non-theoretical flow? A rock. A rock would be a better philosopher than this tranny's embarrassing juvenile attempt at "heh bet you didn't think I was gonna critique the critiquers in FAVOUR of the status quo?" midwit contrarianism. At least a rock is just as stupid as a rock, this is a human being actively trying to be as stupid as a rock. Here's a tip for you, since you're probably the OP posting your own tweets. Don't affect the cringey ";) Just sit back and listen while I style on you, champ" voice until you're older and wiser. The trick is that, by then, you won't want to do it, so I'm really saving you years of people cringing at you and calling you a queer behind your back.

[Anonymous No.17837378]

Analyzing x-pill shit in the year 2021, not a good look

[Anonymous No.17837410]

>>17837245
Where can I find this heideggerian discussion of tool use?

[Anonymous No.17837420]

>>17837369
now add this to your screencap, op, so we don't have to refute the image again.

[Anonymous No.17837455]

>>17837245
>Twitter
Stopped reading, I can tell it will be pseud bullshit.

[Anonymous No.17837472]

>buhu 4chan is retarded but actually correct
okay and?

[Anonymous No.17837497]

>>17837245
Delete the internet, please.

[Anonymous No.17837511]

>>17837257
I'm the Jokah baby!

[Anonymous No.17837540]

Analyzing memes is like analyzing patterns pissed in the snow.

[Anonymous No.17837544]

>>17837369
Good post anon, what about the reply to that post in this image here >>17837257

[Anonymous No.17837548]

>>17837245
This is the poor man's Heidegger, the shit everyone learns at university. To get deeper into Heidegger's shit you can't be a pseud like this guy pretending he knows anything.

[Anonymous No.17837550]

>>17837540
analyzing the analysis of memes is like analyzing patterns pissed in snow.

[Anonymous No.17837551]

>>17837369
Top tier post, always entertaining to see these useful idiots get destroyed.

[Anonymous No.17837562]

>>17837245
>it's unlikely that it's genetics
Is that so lol. Wonder if the guy would care to explain why

[Anonymous No.17837576]

>>17837369
Holy based

[Anonymous No.17837638]

>>17837550
analyzing the analysis of the analysis is like analyzing patterns pissed in snow

>ANAL
>ANAL
>ANAL

[Anonymous No.17837693]

>>17837369
imagine being so personally and vindictively anti-doxa that you essentially yell into the void, with nobody to bother with deciphering your high-horse rhetoric and obnoxious jargon.

You are the reason doxa exists and will always rule over the people. Learn to communicate with some grace and perhaps your ideas won't die a dogs death

[Anonymous No.17837709]

>twitter thread
i don't give a shit but the person you compiled this screencap of sounds like a retard

[Anonymous No.17837741]

>>17837693
but 3 people already complimented his post

[Anonymous No.17837788]

>>17837245
I feel nothing but utter contempt for the person that wrote that "explanation". Whoever did has a vomitive soul.

[Anonymous No.17837798]

>>17837257
>Would you prefer to be Sysiphus or a mouse getting their pleasure centers stimulated by wires.

The absolute lack of self-awareness of whatever primate typed these things onto an imageboard is truly astounding.

[Anonymous No.17837839]

>>17837798
>The absolute lack of self-awareness
Where does he lack awareness?

[Anonymous No.17837933]

>>17837638
upon reflecting on analyzing the analysis of the analysis of the analysis, one must concede that analyzing patterns pissed in snow is actually enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.17837949]

To the snooty smartypantses in this thread, what the hell is the correct heideggerian interpretation then?

[Anonymous No.17837964]

>>17837245
>MUH THERAPY
Who is this retard again?

[Anonymous No.17837968]

>>17837245
Shut the fuck up fag and rack up your weight

[Anonymous No.17837971]

>>17837550
>>17837638
>>17837933
cringe

[Anonymous No.17838000]

>>17837971
you claim to be above it and yet you just handed out three (You)s. welcome to the circle of piss pattern analysis.

[Anonymous No.17838007]

>>17837245
Ready-to-hand and present-at-hand are modes of being for things that don't have the being of Dasein. In short, these categories are impossible to apply to human beings in Heidegger's account, and this twitter poser has no idea what they are talking about. Their hot take never gets off the ground because they have failed to understand the terminology they are employing at even the most rudimentary level. Don't lose sleep over this OP.

>>17837369
This guy gets it.

[Anonymous No.17838024]

>>17837369
B-b-based

[Anonymous No.17838026]

>>17838000
I'm not that anon, I'm just acknowledging cringe.

[Anonymous No.17838033]

>>17837245
There is the presumption that someone looking like they are flowing to an observer is the same as that person actually in some effortless state.
Anyone who is better at something than you is going to look as if they are applying less effort than you, that does not mean they did not apply effort to get to the point that they make the thing seems effortless or are not applying effort as you see them.
Anyone who has excelled at a skill that can be "performed" for an audience knows this.

The idea of self-improvement as a mechanism of "fixing an object" is also a fallacy.
It considers a very specific set of scenarios. That of the man so frustrated with his inability to attract women that he needs to "fix" it. I don't think that's the only impetus for self-improvement or even the most common.
I can only imagine that someone who strive to improve to be able to win an Ultimate Frisbee tournament is not going to take a massive blow to their self-esteem if they're unable to win.

[Anonymous No.17838037]

>>17837741
When you yell into the void sometimes it echoes.

[Anonymous No.17838045]

>>17838037
No it doesn't, it's a fucking void.

[Anonymous No.17838058]

>>17838026
i knew you weren't that anon. i'm glad you continue to engage in our exchange of empty rhetoric, it compliments my position on the matter.

[Anonymous No.17838101]

>>17837245
Was Heiddi just a shit carpenter? My dad was a woodworker and he'd never forget he's using a tool just because everything goes well, that's how you lose 2~3 fingers.

[Anonymous No.17838133]

>>17838101
you nailed it.
now, check these dubs.

[Anonymous No.17838142]

>>17838133
Hot damn would you look at that

[Anonymous No.17838160]

>>17838133

Fucking hell.

[Anonymous No.17838163]

>>17838133
nice

[Anonymous No.17838182]

>>17838133
how? what witchcraft is this?

[Anonymous No.17838234]

>>17837562
Incels coping about muh genetics is the same as fatties coping about muh genetics

[Anonymous No.17838245]

>>17837638
>RAPE
rape
>RAPE
rape

[Anonymous No.17838336]

>>17838234
Are they both as attractive as one another?

[Anonymous No.17838352]

>>17838336
guy on the right making stealthy soiface with the blunt smoke

[Anonymous No.17838369]

>>17838234
>Listen bro, genetics doesn't mean anything, its all about heightifdence and facesonality bro

[Anonymous No.17838373]

>>17838369
Guy on the left is 6ft, guy on the right is 5'11ft

[Anonymous No.17838386]

>>17838245
>ANAL
rape
>ANAL
rape
>ANAL
rape

[Anonymous No.17838497]

>>17837693
Imagine thinking any of that was high-horse rhetoric or obnoxious jargon. Are you 13 yo anon because a high school student could read that post without difficulty.

[Anonymous No.17838504]

>>17837245
>unaware of Heidegger's critique of idle speech and responding to the call

Confirmed midwit take on Heidegger

[Anonymous No.17838583]

>>17838369
wasn't he literally on roids though? so it wasn't genetics

[Anonymous No.17838593]

>>17838336
I don't know what point you are trying to make but the dude on left would look fine if he didn't have that autistic facial hair

[Anonymous No.17838633]

>>17837693
imagine being so personally and vindictively anti-doxa that you essentially yell into the void, with nobody to bother with deciphering your high-horse rhetoric and obnoxious jargon.

You are the reason doxa exists and will always rule over the people. Learn to communicate with some grace and perhaps your ideas won't die a dogs death

[Anonymous No.17839190]

>>17838336
Sui fuel

[Anonymous No.17839231]

>>17837245
Do not ever post a twitter screencap on 4chan again you degenerate faggot

[Anonymous No.17839236]

>>17837369
Ding ding

[Anonymous No.17839276]

theyre saying the same thing.

[Anonymous No.17839344]

>>17837369
Btfo lmao, /thread

[Anonymous No.17839371]

>>17837245
Dear God, people really need to stop focusing entirely on Heidegger's early work. It's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.17839402]

>>17837245
>>17837410
No seriously, does Heidegger have something to say about tool use? I dabbled in neuroscience of tool use for my master's, so I'd love to hear from some anons who know him.

[Anonymous No.17839469]

>>17837949
This guy >>17838007 said it well, Heidegger's discussion of the being of beings (the what-makes-something-what-it-is-ness of any thing-that-is) is situated within a wider of discussion of the being for whom the being of beings is an issue, that is to say Dasein, which is Heidegger's way of saying the human being, the human mind. More or less. The being of Dasein is not itself a being, like the being of a tool or the meaning of a word. It is the site and possibility of the being of such beings.

Learning about the being of those kinds of beings, of what we commonly call things (but also practices, meanings, and so on), is a step toward recognizing that you are not like them. You cannot treat your own being as object-like, thing-like, determinate being. We humans are the source of object-like beings gaining their determinacy in the first place. By understanding this and comiing to awareness of it we regain the possibility of "deciding" on being, which is a deliberately general way of saying taking possession of, and responsibility over, our human ability to shape the way the world is constituted, from the ontology of various sciences to the subtle ways in which we "take" or "feel" reality itself. All this was constituted by human beings making decisions and interpretations, at various levels of awareness of doing so, and we likewise have to make decisions and interpretations of these past moments of decision/interpretation (which initially appear to us as simply "given" brute facts).

We don't shape being all at once or at will, we shape it by understanding our ability to shape it, by understanding where it came from and exploring other possibilities and other horizons of possibility that were decided against and covered up, or that lie hidden in the existing ways that being has come pre-interpreted for us.

The whole point of Heidegger's thesis is to resist seeing ourselves as a special or particular form of being, in the way that a tool is a particular subset of the class of "things." We aren't just a thing, we are the one sort of thing (that we know of) that constitutes things in all their thingliness in the first place.

[Anonymous No.17839494]

>>17839402
It's in Being and Time, look up vorhanden and zuhanden in relation to Heidegger and you will probably find descriptions and articles (and probably whole books) on it. Also look up Hubert Dreyfus' Berkeley lectures on Being and Time, he talks about it one of the first few of them.

His discussion of tools is more of a way of getting at >>17839469 than specifically a discussion of the philosophical anthropology of tool use, in the conventional sense. He's trying to draw a distinction between the way in which a hammer is "part of our experience" (let's say) when we are not thinking in any unusual way about it, just using it normally, and the way in which it is a part of our experience when we suddenly find it problematic. Something becomes "present" for us, consciously looked at and thought about, instead of merely being a seamless part of the logic of what we're already doing, when it becomes problematic.

You might be interested in Michael Polanyi's brief discussion of tool use I think at the beginning of Tacit Knowledge. Also you may find Arnold Gehlen's ideas about technology and prothesis interesting (if I'm remembering correctly that it's Gehlen anyway).

[Anonymous No.17839521]

>>17839494
good shit, thanks anon

[Anonymous No.17839529]

>>17839494
I forgot to note, the Heidegger tool use stuff is especially his way of giving an analogy for how words and meanings function. Because words and meanings are abstract things, it's easier to start with a more prosaic example. But Heidegger does, in the same way, talk about what happens when the meaning of a word or idea breaks down, stops "working right" in its context.

I keep wanting to say "stops fitting in its language game," which is Wittgensteinian language. Wittgenstein also has a lot to say about this - how we use language "without justification" (ohne rechtfertigung, something like "without making a case for it") but that this doesn't mean we thereby use it "wrongly" (unrecht). The distinction here is between how a word (or tool) is used without thinking consciously about its inner workings, or some theoretical model or accounting of any inner workings - it simply feels "always already" well-suited for, fit to, the situation in which we use it.

A carpenter simply knows that his hammer is for hammering, his the butt of his screwdriver (unless maybe in a pinch, in which case it can "act like a hammer," "do as a hammer does"). The tool is always already suited for the situation, its use is not "planned" in some kind of abstract calculus (unless something very strange is going on). For Heidegger and Wittgenstein, the same is true of words, meanings. Wittgenstein for example draws a direct comparison with how we can't imagine a famous person having a name other than the one they have, it's as if that name was "made for him." Same thing as the from-the-gut depth with which we usually feel-think (not consciously think) that a hammer is "for" nailing, that words mean what they mean.

>>17839521
Np, would you happen to recommend anything on the cognitive/neuroscience of tool use btw?

I'm racking my brain trying to think of some cybernetics thinker who talked about how we integretate prosthetics into our proprioception, I think in Dupuy's Origins of Cognitive Science.. Merleau-Ponty might be another one to look at actually (Dreyfus has another set of lectures on him fyi)

[Anonymous No.17839534]

>>17839529
Last post sorry - I am pretty sure Michael Polanyi at least in the early pages of TK talks about how for example when we use a stick to fish something out of a hole, we feel the stick as an extension of ourselves

[Anonymous No.17839573]

>>17837369
Good post

[Anonymous No.17839679]

>>17839529
>Np, would you happen to recommend anything on the cognitive/neuroscience of tool use btw?
It wasn't in anything prosthetics-related. It's a narrow field that only has articles written in it. One very interesting insight is that praxis (transitive gestures, like movements related to tool use) are more anatomically and therefore functionally (lateralization) correlated with language functions than with intransitive gestures (like actual meaningful hand signs). Which is pretty fucking surprising. Handedness is another keyword to throw in google scholar if you're interested in researching this. Neuroscience articles should be perfectly understandable for a philosopher, except for the methods section, but you don't need it to understand what was done.

[Anonymous No.17839685]

>>17837369
I have never read a post this good in a miserable decade on this site

[Anonymous No.17839739]

>>17838369
>>17838336
none of them are incels tho

[Anonymous No.17839771]

>>17837245
>it's unlikely that it's genetics
And dropped. This philosophy stuff is easy when you are an evolutionary biology believer. Imagine ever arguing that social constructs, which are constructed downstream from reproductive success, will ever out compete gene selection. Pure fucking delusion. We haven't completely upended the natural world's fruit basket yet, despite all of our efforts. That day is coming, but by the time we possess the technical capability we will use that technology to manifest exaggerations of natural success markers, not rejection of them.

[Anonymous No.17840000]

>>17838369
6'-1" on the left, 5' 14" on the right.

[Anonymous No.17840020]

>>17837245
Its pointless nonsense written by someone even more pathetic then you imagine yourself.

[Anonymous No.17840221]

>>17837369
ty for this post

[Anonymous No.17840227]

>>17837369
the tell for me in the tweets is the "I'll wait" on the Heidegger slides

[Anonymous No.17840235]

>>17838133
is this post real????

[Anonymous No.17840260]

>>17838369
guy on the right is probably not doing OHP/upper chest bench press which explains his ugly ass moobs. guy on the left is also roiding (you can tell from the delts).

[Anonymous No.17840266]

>>17838369
Genetics matters but you have to work with what you've got. Everyone can become a better version of themself. You're more likely to get whatever it is you want if you push yourself to improve.

[Anonymous No.17840272]

>>17840266
women are so naturally short that even a 5'4-5'7 guy can reliably get women when if he's likeable/attractive. in reality it's just that they do have to work harder and deal with a smaller dating pool, but that's never stopped short men from breeding

[Anonymous No.17840276]

>>17837245
>just meditate bro
>just get therapy bro
Holy shit, all of this "philosophy" for the most pseud tier end-advice. Heidegger is the most overrated philosopher in existence.

[Anonymous No.17840302]

>>17837369
There you go

[Anonymous No.17840316]

>>17840276

[Anonymous No.17840331]

>>17837245
You can get the same point from 'Notes from Underground' with less Continental fuckery. I can't refute the argument tho

[Anonymous No.17840428]

Why did he even bring up Hidenigger? The post is more in line with Aristotle's thought that you can't be virtuous if you haven't been raised well. It ignores the idea that someone with self-restraint could eventually come around to having eudaimonia, which he seems to imply later.

[Anonymous No.17840440]

>>17837245
>applying heidegger's philosophy to sex
seriously now?

[Anonymous No.17840463]

>>17837369
holy fucking based, someone add this refutation to OPs image

[Anonymous No.17841439]

>>17837245
I agree with this, thoroughly. It's something I've arrived at myself after seeing this kind if pictures but couldn't really put into words.

[Anonymous No.17841690]

>>17837245
I cant understand anything. Stop using big words.

[Anonymous No.17841718]

Everyone is focusing on whether the Heidegger is right. Put aside the gratuitous import of Heidegger and ask yourself: is the assessment sound? Does it comport with reality?

[Anonymous No.17841791]

>>17841718
If they didn't want me to judge them on the basis of Heidegger scholarship, they should have just posted their idea without leaning on an author they clearly don't understand for support. I don't owe them that level of charity when they don't respect their audience enough to stick to what they know.

[Anonymous No.17841819]

>>17838037
>>17838045
Fucking kek
Give it up OP, you have been throughly BTFO

[Anonymous No.17841856]

>>17838133
with great pleasure anon

[Anonymous No.17841895]

>>17840227
It's a TLP reference same with the phrase "hypertrophied intuition of damaged man"

[Anonymous No.17841902]

>>17841895
>TLP reference
disgusting

[Anonymous No.17841955]

>>17838336
One on the left would look fine if he shaved the beard, got a better haircut and allowed himself to gain some mass. Smiling is a must also.

[Anonymous No.17841966]

>>17837369
B A S E D
A friend of mine uses the Heidegger hammer like this also AND IT'S A HUGE OVERSIMPLIFICATION OF HEIDEGGER'S ENTIRE POINT.
My friend likes ANT and Object oriented ontology, something HEIDEGGER WOULD NEVER IN A MILLION YEARS APPROVE OF.

[Anonymous No.17841969]

>>17839771
>by the time we possess the technical capability we will use that technology to manifest exaggerations of natural success markers, not rejection of them
And that's a good thing

[Anonymous No.17841980]

>>17837693
Kys faggot, this was a well written post refuting the fucking Retarded OP on his own terms. It's peak fucking philosophy and argumentation, since it shows the contradictions inherent in the OP's position.

[Anonymous No.17841981]

>>17840000
kek'd and chek'd

[Anonymous No.17841986]

>>17837257

The latter might be a cope but mediocrity is genuinely bad, he's not wrong about that.

[Anonymous No.17841989]

>>17839529
Dude have you studied philosophy? This is good shit.

[Anonymous No.17841994]

>>17839771
>evolutionary biology
Go to bed Sam Harris

[Anonymous No.17842031]

>>17841994
It may be cringe but he's right

[Anonymous No.17842066]

>>17838583
The height is genetic, the frame is genetic, the face is genetic. These are what matter when creating sexual attraction.
>>17838593
The point I'm making is in response to this fag >>17838234

>>17839739
If you were guess at the two who where incels and the two who weren't, who would you pick and why?

>>17840266
Yes, which is my response to >>17838234
>Genetics matters but you have to work with what you've got
You hit the GYM HARD, while Chad eats pizza

Girls look at your gymcel body and think "ewww what a try hard" while they look at the chad and think "i love him, he just does what he wants, not even concerned about the whole bodybuilding thing".

Chad STILL looks INFINITELY better than you because of his GENETICALLY DETERMINED HEIGHT, FRAME and FACE.

Women are getting more and more choice and validation and its either CHAD or NOTHING

Why haven't you gymcels learnt yet?

It's either ALPHA GENETICS, or BETA RESULTS.

>Be a better version of yourself
Sure faggot but that does not mean for one second that you will get any results, to go back to >>17837257
the task is the task of cope and rolling your rock up a hill, just to occupy your time. The factors that matter are set in stone and genetic, being fat isn't, you can lose weight, can't grow taller, can't change your frame, can't change your face, can't change your race, can't change your genes. All these factors matter far fucking more than "personality" or fucking "smiling".

[Anonymous No.17842077]

>>17838583
The height is genetic, the frame is genetic, the face is genetic. These are what matter when creating sexual attraction.
>>17838593
The point I'm making is in response to this fag >>17838234

>>17839739
If you were to guess at the two who were incels, and the two who weren't, who would you pick and why?

>>17840266
Yes, which is my response to >>17838234
>Genetics matters but you have to work with what you've got
You hit the gym hard, while Chad eats pizza.

Girls look at your body and think "ewww what a try hard" while they look at the chad and think "i love him, he just does what he wants, not even concerned about the whole bodybuilding thing".

Chad STILL looks far better than you because of his GENETICALLY DETERMINED HEIGHT, FRAME and FACE.

It's either ALPHA GENETICS, or BETA RESULTS.

>Be a better version of yourself
Sure faggot but that does not mean for one second that you will get any substantive results, to go back to >>17837257
the task is the task of cope and rolling your rock up a hill, just to occupy your time. The factors that matter are set in stone and genetic, being fat isn't, you can lose weight, can't grow taller, can't change your frame, can't change your face, can't change your race, can't change your genes. All these factors matter far fucking more than "personality" or fucking "smiling".

[Anonymous No.17842082]

>>17841986
>might be a cope but mediocrity
Why?
Objectively you have no basis to say mediocrity is bad.

[Anonymous No.17842091]

>>17837369
Fuck it, this one's for the history books

[Anonymous No.17842096]

>>17842066
Too blackpilled for my taste but I generally agree
>All these factors matter far fucking more than "personality" or fucking "smiling"
To add to this, when chad doesn't smile he's "broody and mysterious", when the ugly rat doesn't smile he's just a weirdo. Beauty gives you more leeway.
>the task is the task of cope and rolling your rock up a hill, just to occupy your time
Kinda. I think everyone can gain something from lifting or reading. But that doesn't mean it will get you laid.

[Anonymous No.17842103]

>>17842096
Meant to reply to >>17842077

[Anonymous No.17842109]

>>17842091
So many layers. We're living the creation of a meme that will live on to greet future 4channers with our optimistic view of life

[Anonymous No.17842111]

>>17842066
this is shopped

[Anonymous No.17842113]

>>17842077
To follow up, the fact is some people are broken. OP >>17837245, so if Heidegger philosophy amounts to just be yourself >>17840316 then its fucking stupid.

>Just meditate bro, just take therapy bro

The fact is this, life isn't fair, self improvement is a cope. The act of realizing that you're broken isn't what fucking broke you. That's what I take issue with in the OP. Is it better to acknowledge that you're broken or deny it, I don't know. But the reality again is that YOU ARE BROKEN.

[Anonymous No.17842120]

>>17842091
Good work anon

[Anonymous No.17842125]

It's funny how /lit/ acts like it has figured out life and women but this pic still makes it seethe

[Anonymous No.17842141]

>Study the following slides. I'll wait.
Kek. what compels people to write like this? like they need to be hostile and asserting control over the other person constantly.

[Anonymous No.17842148]

>>17842096
>To add to this, when chad doesn't smile he's "broody and mysterious", when the ugly rat doesn't smile he's just a weirdo. Beauty gives you more leeway.
100%
Personality is looks, perception is reality, and ones looks shape how they are perceived. Never forget that "personality" is just another word for looks. Chad stands in the corner of the room and says nothing. Women go crazy over how "mysterious" he is. You do the same and they call the police.

>Kinda. I think everyone can gain something from lifting or reading. But that doesn't mean it will get you laid.
My point exactly, it doesn't mean it will get you laid, it might not make any difference. You lift so that you're healthy, have some struggle and can defend yourself. You read to find answers and educate yourself. Not to get pussy.

[Anonymous No.17842151]

>>17842031
If everything is about sex, why are you on this fucking anime board and not out trying to get laid motherfucker?

[Anonymous No.17842169]

>>17842113
You’re rationalizing your weaknesses because you’re a weak piece of shit. And you’re not a weak piece of shit because of your parents, you’re weak because that is your personality. Your whole worldview is that of a materialistic bitch, your rely on confirmation biases because nuances are too complex for your narrow understanding of human relationships. Girls don’t give a shit about you because you’re a piece of shit, not because you’re ugly.

[Anonymous No.17842174]

The whole jocks VS brains dichotomy needs to go. Most people who played sports at my school were intelligent. The ones who didn’t do football anyway

[Anonymous No.17842176]

>>17842151
>If everything is about sex, why are you on this fucking anime board and not out trying to get laid motherfucker?
Are you retarded?
Yes everything is about sex, every instinct and drive we have is to make it so we pass on our genes. Those that don't pass on their genes are selected out of the gene pool, meaning that they don't shape our nature. What shapes our nature, and therefore EVERYTHING we do are those that breed through sex.

[Anonymous No.17842179]

>>17837369
holy insane based

[Anonymous No.17842202]

>>17842169
>You’re rationalizing your weaknesses because you’re a weak piece of shit.
Wrong, I believe weakness is a tantamount to a sin. Might makes right in this world, if you're weak you will be exploited and used. The only option one has is to be as strong, as one can.
My point isn't rationalizing weakness, its just saying that when it comes to what women find attractive, they don't give a fuck about your self improvement, they care about your genes, because that's what sex is about genes.

>And you’re not a weak piece of shit because of your parents, you’re weak because that is your personality.
Well I'm not a weak piece of shit faggot, sounds like I struck a nerve pussy, also there is a difference between "personality" which is pop pseud faggy bullshit and character. Use the word character.

>Your whole worldview is that of a materialistic bitch
How is it materialistic? What are my confirmation biases? Where am I wrong? Seems you didn't make one substantive argument in that whole diatribe you faggot bitch.

[Anonymous No.17842227]

>>17842176
Two points:
a) Homo sapiens have no instincts.
b) "Sex" and reproduction are antithetical. The people who have the most "sex" are also the ones least likely to pass on their genes. (Learning to control your sexual impulse is, in fact, step one in starting a family.)

[Anonymous No.17842241]

>>17842227
>The people who have the most "sex" are also the ones least likely to pass on their genes.
This seems like an empirical hypothesis that can be proven or disproven. Any evidence?

[Anonymous No.17842270]

This thread is 50% smart people discussing philosophy and 50% retards talking about the original 4chan post in OP for the billionth time

[Anonymous No.17842273]

>>17842241
Yes, look at the stats and how openness to "sex" and number of sexual partners correlates to fertility rate.

[Anonymous No.17842278]

>>17842077
You sound like a redditor/poltard who just got "redpilled" two days ago. Read a book and have sex.

[Anonymous No.17842282]

>>17842227
>a) Homo sapiens have no instincts.
Completely and utterly retarded. So retarded in fact that you're too low in iq to continue this adult conversation.

>b) "Sex" and reproduction are antithetical. The people who have the most "sex" are also the ones least likely to pass on their genes. (Learning to control your sexual impulse is, in fact, step one in starting a family.)
This is partly true, also a very recent development, contraception is a new invention. We haven't evolved to deal with it. The purpose of sex is reproduction, to say that they are antithetical though is sub retard, how are they antithetical, you can't reproduce without sex?

>The people who have the most "sex" are also the ones least likely to pass on their genes
Wrong, its the people who are having no sex, that are least likely to pass on their genes retard.

Where I slightly agree with you is that R selected people don't want children, they want a lot of sex, so if they are smart they will use contraception. But many aren't smart, they are so dumb and impulsive that they can't even be bothered with using contraception or having abortions. These people have a lot of children, now the children grow up with a single mommy and on welfare, but there are many of them, again you're retarded.

[Anonymous No.17842285]

>>17842077
>that does not mean for one second that you will get any substantive results
What is the "result" that you want? Maybe start with that, okay.

[Anonymous No.17842286]

>>17842278
>You sound like a redditor/poltard who just got "redpilled" two days ago.
Have you got an argument?

[Anonymous No.17842292]

>>17842285
>What is the "result" that you want? Maybe start with that, okay.
Well the guy was talking about incels, the result incels want is sex and love, maybe a family. I thought that was clearly implied.

[Anonymous No.17842296]

>>17842286
An argument you say?

[Anonymous No.17842318]

>>17842296
Yeah pussy

[Anonymous No.17842323]

>>17842282
>Completely and utterly retarded. So retarded in fact that you're too low in iq to continue this adult conversation.
"Instinct" is defined as "complex behavior that isn't learned but inherited genetically".

Drives, compulsions and feelz are not instincts.

Looks like you're the potato retard in this conversation, monsieur.

>contraception is a new invention
Definitely false; learn you a history of the ancient world, especially the Roman parts and periods. Contraception was socially taboo in Medieval Europe, but not because it wasn't invented.

>you can't reproduce without sex?
Yes you can. "Sex" being defined as "libido", it is *entirely* optional to human reproduction.

>Wrong, its the people who are having no sex, that are least likely to pass on their genes retard.
Pretty sure even hardcore incels have a higher chance of reproduction than homosexuals or trannies. (That said, incels are usually so far into porn that their libido levels are way up there with the rest of the sexual degenerate camp.)

>R selected people
I said nothing at all about "R selected people", you potatohead.

[Anonymous No.17842331]

>>17842318
Truly, he is one of us.

[Anonymous No.17842332]

>>17842292
> the result incels want is sex and love, maybe a family
I sincerely doubt that, since the low-hanging fruit of lonely females is readily available and incels know it.

[Anonymous No.17842404]

Why do men put so much stock into whether women like them or not? I’ve personally given up on the possibility that a woman will ever take an interest in me. The only time I’m bothered by this is when I’m horny. But guess what? I cum and it’s over. After that I feel literally 0 desire to be around those high pitched, weak retards anymore. Unironically it was having a gf which showed me how boring, irrational, and stupid women are. I used to write e-mails to her relaying various philosophical ideas I had thought of and all she would respond with was how her day went, what she felt, what she ate, and so on. Yes they’re beautiful and their bodies are desirable but that’s literally it.

[Anonymous No.17842465]

>>17842323
>"Instinct" is defined as "complex behavior that isn't learned but inherited genetically".
"Instinct" is defined as - an innate, typically fixed pattern of behaviour in animals in response to certain stimuli. Lets play a game of semantics why not. Because clearly, if I put your hand on a hot stove top, you wouldn't instinctively remove your hand.


>>contraception is a new invention
>Definitely false
Sorry, I didn't know they were using condoms and birth control in Rome and Medieval Europe

>Yes you can. "Sex" being defined as "libido", it is *entirely* optional to human reproduction.
Hypothetically its an option, but of those that breed and reproduce most do so through sex, so to sex and reproduction are antithetical to one another remains sub retarded, frog.

>Pretty sure even hardcore incels have a higher chance of reproduction than homosexuals or trannies. (That said, incels are usually so far into porn that their libido levels are way up there with the rest of the sexual degenerate camp.)
Sorry wasn't thinking of fags and trannies, I was thinking of normal people sex, between a man and a woman. I would still think closet homos are more likely to reproduce than an incel.

>I said nothing at all about "R selected people", you potatohead.
You didn't, I did because it relates to what you said dickhead. Its called injecting nuance into a conversation.

[Anonymous No.17842469]

>>17842176
Retard. Explain foot fetishes or fetish for shoes? Those don't help spread your genes, but are real phenomena. Explain the feeling of morality or outrage over women's choice of clothes. Your biological reductionism can't explain shit but whatever you think is logical within this abomination of a framework built on whatever truths you throw onto nature, like a new religion you take for granted to be true. Your very concept of "nature" as anything other than what is evident in itself is fucking ideology, you cannot say anything other than "people have sex" anything added onto that, any reasonings is purely constructs of whatever you think nature is supposed to be.

[Anonymous No.17842472]

>>17842404
>she would respond with was how her day went, what she felt, what she ate, and so on. Yes they’re beautiful and their bodies are desirable but that’s literally it.
> that’s literally it
Lol where do you think you are?

[Anonymous No.17842527]

>>17842270
The Heidegger posting was borderline erudite and compelling and then the thread spiraled into /r9k/ tier retardation.

[Anonymous No.17842595]

>spend gruelling years on therapy and perhaps you can suffer slightly less when you participate in society
>if you're lucky you may get to put penis in vagina
I don't get why people are willing to deal with this bullshit. No thanks, I will kill myself.

[Anonymous No.17842611]

>>17842404
classic incel post

[Anonymous No.17842612]

>>17842469
>Retard. Explain foot fetishes or fetish for shoes?
Reread it again retard
>Those that don't pass on their genes are selected out of the gene pool, meaning that they don't shape our nature.
In so far as they don't breed they die out, meaning that they don't shape our nature, fetishists are mutants or traumatized.

>Explain the feeling of morality or outrage over women's choice of clothes.
Of course it can, give me an example and I'll explain it.

> like a new religion you take for granted to be true.
No, its the best explanation for human nature that we have now, name a more vigorous scientific explanation for human behavior other than evolutionary biology and psychology.

>Your very concept of "nature" as anything other than what is evident in itself is fucking ideology
Gibberish

>you cannot say anything other than "people have sex" anything added onto that, any reasonings is purely constructs of whatever you think nature is supposed to be.
Yes, its called logic and inferences you retard, its the basis of all science and math.

[Anonymous No.17842771]

>>17842527
the thread reviewer has arrived

[Anonymous No.17842825]

>>17842148
I saw you on /fit/ too making a thread about this.

LMAO all you do is go around seething and spamming pics of whores rejecting you.

[Anonymous No.17842832]

>>17842771
This post is very tepid and uninspiring. One must wonder what manner of reaction it's author intended to provoke. Failing to even capitalize a single letter, the author ultimately comes across as incredibly lazy. I rate this post a very shaky 2/10. I would not recommend that anyone read it.

[Anonymous No.17843258]

>>17837369
insightful, thank you for the antithesis

[Anonymous No.17843324]

>>17842832
The bitter irony of writing a review that takes longer to read than the original work and subsequently declaring that said work isn't worthwhile is utterly lost on the reviewer. Their writing does not conform to the laconic standards of the genre that enable more apt reviewers to avoid this very trap (see: "cool story, bro!" or "gr8 b8 m8 I r8 8/8" for just two excellent examples). They spare no effort towards making their style and presentation as grandiose as they can while at the same time sparing every effort towards any kind of self-awareness. It is with a heavy heart that I set my final rating at 2/10, the only credit being given for the exemplary educational value of this cautionary tale of making a colossal ass of oneself as a korean basket weaving post critic.

inb4 no u

[Anonymous No.17843333]

>>17838234
The fatties are right though, they're genetically predisposed to have no ability to control themselves around food. They're like alcoholics

[Anonymous No.17843344]

>>17837548
will you expand on that

[Anonymous No.17843777]

>>17837245
The original post on 4chan was, itself, always a meme.

The belief that chad just "went through life and lived life normally" and that people who can't do that now are "pure genetic trash" is a massive meme. That's not how evolution works nor how human reproduction works. If a large portion of young men cannot reproduce or have romantic relationships in the modern age, that means that the modern age has had a massive shift in how these things form that people have been swept up in it. One person is an outlier, but a population is statistic. And indeed, society had changed massively in the past 20 years because of computers/internet/dating sites, automaton, politics, and many more that would upset this fundamental, "normal" life path. People who say or believe otherwise are not "redpilled" or "blackpilled' they are overly aggressive trolls who want to either wallow in self pity or try to demoralize others because it gives them a kick.

[Anonymous No.17844424]

>>17843777
Trips wasted on a furry...oh the horror

[Anonymous No.17844434]

>>17844424
check these

[Anonymous No.17844543]

>>17837369
hail to the king of /lit/

[Anonymous No.17844572]

>>17843777
you use a whole lot of words to say nothing at all.

[Anonymous No.17844586]

>>17842091
>The executive has entered the building

[Anonymous No.17844608]

>>17837741
and I bet you none of them could restate it's content, it just has the aire of authority and is attacking the right target. based as they say

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17844640]

this is just existentialism

[Anonymous No.17844919]

>>17838133
checked

[Anonymous No.17846311]

>>17842091
Saved

[Anonymous No.17847038]

>>17843324
no u
:^)

[Anonymous No.17848332]

>>17841895
Did TLP really do that???? Horrible

Also great catch, https://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/04/the_abusive_boyfriend.html

[Anonymous No.17848533]

>>17842091
now tweet this at them so we can expand the template even further