I AM TIRED OF STUFF

[Anonymous No.18534120]

You see. Everything is just "stuff". Ideologies, emotions, skills, hobbies. It all revolves around stuff. Even spirituality revolves around "stuff". What "stuff" made the "stuff" that exist, what stuff happens to you after you die. Even if it did have some grand "meaning" it would still all be just "stuff". Books, movies, games, it is all just about "stuff", even if fictional. What "stuff" we want or is taken, what "stuff " we do not like, how "stuff" makes us sad or happy, what happens to the "stuff" in the end. When I think about it, I realize all of it, even thinking about it is just "stuff" and stuff is really cringey because people make such a big deal about it... when it is just stuff, as I said even acknowledging it is participating in this cycle of "stuff." Thus doing things, like hobbies or interest is just pointless participation in stuff cause it makes us "happy", which in itself is stuff. Not even I can transcend this caring about stuff even though I realize it. It never ends. Its so hard to talk about this concept, it is pervasive, perhaps what I am trying to say is participation in existence to any degree is seemingly pointless when I think about it deeply. I'm not a nihlist but that is how it seems, and when I browse this board I see topics on pointless stuff like "philosophy", "religion, "ideologies", the history of stuff or stories revolving around stuff and it gets to me. Even though I find a lot of those topics interesting when I think about everything just breaks down.

[Anonymous No.18534127]

I ain’t tired of your mom

[Anonymous No.18534131]

>I ain’t tired of your mom

[Anonymous No.18534141]

>>18534120

[Anonymous No.18534144]

>>18534127
>>18534131
you faggots. It does not matter anyway.

[Anonymous No.18534149]

>>18534120
All of this "stuff" is illusory. You have to concentrate on the Absolute.

[Anonymous No.18534152]

>>18534149
even the "absolute" or whatever metaphysical mumbo jumbo is stuff, hell it might not even exist

[Anonymous No.18534158]

You're depressed, anon. Exercise helps.

[Anonymous No.18534161]

>>18534158
I went to the gym today, and the two days before. I like it but that is just stuff too.

[Anonymous No.18534162]

>>18534152
Is stuff because you only think about it, you need some practice. Join some monastic path idk.

[Anonymous No.18534169]

>>18534120
youll understand when youre older

[Anonymous No.18534172]

>>18534120
Check out Spinoza. Everything else is just a cope.

[Anonymous No.18534194]

>>18534152
>hell it might not even exist
The only thing that is truly real is your thoughts

[Anonymous No.18534195]

>>18534172
philosophy is STUFF

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.18534251]

STOP MASTURBATING.

[Anonymous No.18534257]

>>18534149
I would be careful about reading Advaita Vedanta interpretations such as Shankara's as a commentary to the Upanishads, they are extremely reliant on Buddhist philosophy (Shankara is called a "cryptobuddhist" by most Hindus, and most scholars agree). If you want to read the Upanishads, work through them with editions and commentaries that aren't sectarian, or at least read an interpretation that is closer to the original meaning of the Upanishads, rather than Shankara's 9th century AD quasi-buddhism.

[Anonymous No.18534269]

>>18534161
This is bait, and boring bait at that

[Anonymous No.18534276]

>>18534120
Eventually you have to accept some of that "stuff" as axiomatic. That's your starting point; from that point on you make sense of more and more "stuff" in relation to your axioms, which you just accept as being more than "stuff." It may seem arbitrary, but it's the only alternative to your present state

[Anonymous No.18534278]

>>18534269
Why would I lie on an anonymous message board? I have nothing to gain.

[Anonymous No.18534283]

Cook Ting was cutting up an ox for Lord Wen-hui. As every touch of his hand, every heave of his shoulder, every move of his feet, every thrust of his knee — zip! zoop! He slithered the knife along with a zing, and all was in perfect rhythm, as though he were performing the dance of the Mulberry Grove or keeping time to the Ching-shou music.

“Ah, this is marvelous!” said Lord Wen-hui. “Imagine skill reaching such heights!”

Cook Ting laid down his knife and replied, “What I care about is the Way, which goes beyond skill. When I first began cutting up oxen, all I could see was the ox itself. After three years I no longer saw the whole ox. And now — now I go at it by spirit and don’t look with my eyes. Perception and understanding have come to a stop and spirit moves where it wants. I go along with the natural makeup, strike in the big hollows, guide the knife through the big openings, and following things as they are. So I never touch the smallest ligament or tendon, much less a main joint.

“A good cook changes his knife once a year — because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks. I’ve had this knife of mine for nineteen years and I’ve cut up thousands of oxen with it, and yet the blade is as good as though it had just come from the grindstone. There are spaces between the joints, and the blade of the knife has really no thickness. If you insert what has no thickness into such spaces, then there’s plenty of room — more than enough for the blade to play about it. That’s why after nineteen years the blade of my knife is still as good as when it first came from the grindstone.

“However, whenever I come to a complicated place, I size up the difficulties, tell myself to watch out and be careful, keep my eyes on what I’m doing, work very slowly, and move the knife with the greatest subtlety, until — flop! the whole thing comes apart like a clod of earth crumbling to the ground. I stand there holding the knife and look all around me, completely satisfied and reluctant to move on, and then I wipe off the knife and put it away.”

“Excellent!” said Lord Wen-hui. “I have heard the words of Cook Ting and learned how to care for life!”

- Zhuangzi

[Anonymous No.18534284]

>>18534120

it comes and goes. as does all.

[Anonymous No.18534286]

>>18534120
Ah yes, I too was 17 once.

[Anonymous No.18534293]

>>18534251
stop posting on /tv slut

[Anonymous No.18534378]

>>18534278
I dont claim to understand all the reasons a troll is a troll, but ive learned to identify them, and you are one.

[Anonymous No.18534424]

>>18534120
The thing is that you're bored of being human. Become a posthumanist.

[Anonymous No.18534430]

>>18534120
Best advice I can give:
It is what it is

[Anonymous No.18534942]

>>18534424
>posthumanist
No thats what the cring globalist want to do, I don't want to be something else

[Anonymous No.18534973]

>>18534251
Why?

[Anonymous No.18534979]

>>18534269
I dont think youve been depressed if you dont understand what hes saying

[Anonymous No.18535061]

>>18534979
Thanks for understanding, but I dunno even know if I'm depressed. Just a strange realization. I feel good at times in the day but the rest I just feel lazy and apathetic.

[Anonymous No.18535066]

>>18534973
It helsp a lot but it is not some magical cure all.

[Anonymous No.18535093]

>>18534120
'Tired' and 'Boredom' is also stuff :^)

I hope our exchange today has served to right your course a little.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.18535106]

>>18535066


BECAUSE YOU KILL A PART OF YOURSELF WITH EACH EJACULATION, THE LEAST OF THE SYMPTOMS OF WHICH IS THAT TYPE OF LETHARGIC ANHEDONIA/PERPETUAL TEDIVM THAT YOU DESCRIBE.

[Anonymous No.18535110]

>>18534120
maybe you should go read a book instead of writing a huge pile of garbage.

[࿇ C Œ M G E N V S ࿇ !KNDY3cHnRY No.18535111]

>>18534973

>>18535106

[Anonymous No.18535115]

You must go to the root of all stuff, Anon. Read Plato.

[Anonymous No.18535133]

>>18535115
Hes on my list

[Anonymous No.18535137]

>>18535110
I do though.

[Anonymous No.18535650]

>>18534120
Read Sartre's "Nausea." It won't explain anything to you, really. It won't magically make you care about "stuff." But read it. It helped me a lot when I felt the way you feel now. Just knowing that there was someone else who understood how I felt did wonders for my psyche.
If you really do not want to read the whole thing, look up the passage about the oak tree, at least.

[Anonymous No.18535706]

>>18534120
Litterally Mazzaro della roba

[Anonymous No.18535989]

>>18534149
don't do this

[N M . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.18536354]

>>18534120
You need to realize that the mechanicistic absurdity that so confounds you pertains to the current world, not to life; due to the world being saturated with superfluity in this zionist reality everything is now immundus —id est: there no longer is any cohesive syncord between the individual, the world, and its/their products, but, rather, it is now solely up to the individual to make the effort to integrate & synthesize within himself the foodstuffs that are essential to the soul —soulfood— in order to thrive, rather than merely survive and/or comply; your own breath is the only thing that can carry & sublimate your weight.

[Anonymous No.18537335]

>>18534120
do drugs
get a gf
make art
>inb4 that's just stuff
no

[Anonymous No.18537352]

>>18534120
>Alle Dinge sind dinglich, wenn man sie nur als Dinge betrachten will.
>All things are just things and thing like when you see them but as such.
Great discovery. That’s how Plato got his forms; how any other philosopher got his metaphysics or metaphysics stand in.
It’s not really a new thing.

[Anonymous No.18537375]

>>18534120
Holy fuck, the state of this board is irredeemable.

[Anonymous No.18537381]

>>18537335
It's just stuff. Spirituality beats all of that, but it's still just stuff.

[Anonymous No.18537393]

>>18534120

not quite
There are actually two things stuff and power
power controls and dictates everything else which is the stuff

[Anonymous No.18537399]

>>18537393
Ich hab' mein' Sache auf nichts gestellt

[Anonymous No.18537409]

>>18537399
Mein Sache ist weder das Göttliche noch das Menschliche, ist nicht das Wahre, Gute, Rechte, Freie, usw., sondern allein das Meinige, und sie ist keine allgemeine, sondern ist -- einzig, wie Ich einzig bin.
Mir geht nichts über mich!

[Anonymous No.18537441]

>>18534172
Spinoza makes the following errors:
1. Confuses cause and effect with reason and consequent
2. Accepts the principle of sufficient reason without proof
3. Uses the ontological proof to falsely prove substance's existence
4. Thinks the noumenal realm is characterized by extension which is impossible to prove
5. Thinks phenomenal realm is characterized by representation which is impossible to prove
6. Thinks that an infinite chain of causes is sufficient to give a cause to the present state even though different infinite chains could still be possible, thus necessitating a grand infinite chain selector according to the PSR which Spinoza doesn't show
7. The existence of eternal modes is predicated purely on their attributes being able to support them, but just because something is able to support my existence doesn't imply I exist in any sense of the word exist.
8. Errors in his physics
That should account for every error.

[Anonymous No.18537451]

>>18534276
What do you mean by axiom, because it surely doesn't look like you mean by it "assumption"?

[Anonymous No.18537460]

>>18534283
I dont get it

[Anonymous No.18537469]

>>18537441
Based refuter of dogmatic metaphysics

[Anonymous No.18537488]

>>18537393
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.18537524]

>>18537393
"Power" cannot be proven to exist, nor can you locate who has amd doesn't have power since to cause something and for something else to cause you to determine something are perceptually equivalent. You can't prove it because you can't tell what is merely a moment following another temporally and one moment causing another),

[Anonymous No.18537528]

>>18534131
curious,you people seem to laugh at my mother's obesity yet you constantly boast about your sexual intercourse with her last night

[Anonymous No.18537542]

>>18534120
"Stuff" is an unorganized collection of objects. You then have four choices, philosophy, science, religion, or art. Philosophy deduces the necessity behind the existence of these objects, thus making them no longer stuff. Science induces patterns out of objects and deduces mathematical structures out of these inductions, thus making the world no longer seem random. Religion sets up faith in a principle and derives the world from it, thus making it no longer stuff. Art gives an order to these objects, thus making them no longer stuff.

[Anonymous No.18537549]

>>18537524
Power is the only thing that can be proven to exist. Your will is basically the only thing you are totally sure of.

[Anonymous No.18537570]

>>18537549
Yet you provide absolutely nothing to support ypur argument while I have already provided two proofs which absolutely prove my case. Interesting.

No, you cannot be "totally sure of" your will (aka your ability to cause things) for the reasons I just gave. You cannot even tell the difference between you willing something and someone else willing you to determine something, so location of power is impossible to prove first of all. Second of all, you cannot tell the difference between a succession of moments and one moment causing another.

[Anonymous No.18537582]

>>18537570
My proof is direct experience. If you don't have a will, then you will never understand. It must be a shame being a literal NPC.

[Anonymous No.18537591]

>>18536354
How hard would it be to just say Jews + postmodernism = lack of concrete perceptions values.
Pseudery will get you nowhere my friend.

[Anonymous No.18537603]

>>18537582
You cannot directly see causality jfl. I think you are making the naive mistake of confusing emotions with will.

[Anonymous No.18537624]

>>18534120
I agree with you but you are a nihilist I'm afraid. What is there beyond stuff? You yourself are unable to name it.

[Anonymous No.18537632]

>>18537603
>You cannot directly see causality
My will is directly perceivable to me, and it is entirely distinct from all other effects (wills) arising from different sources. One example is hunger. It wills me to eat. My will, I, can choose whether to indulge it or suppress it. Emotions can attempt to make me feel certain ways. My will can negate those emotions. Again, NPCs will not understand.

[Anonymous No.18537654]

>>18537632

[Anonymous No.18537658]

>>18537632
You can only percieve the emotion, not the fact that it causes you to do anything. Again, you cannot tell the difference between two moments one following another and one causing another. This is basic Hume, and was the biggest philosophical problem in history. Note if you are operating off of Schopenhauer he would agree with me, being a fan of Hume and not completely retarded. Even Nietzsche would agree with me (he takes willing as an assumption for this reason in BGE for his will to power theory, and in previous books notes the impossibility of proving willing). There is no mode of perception which would make you be able to percieve determination.

[Anonymous No.18537685]

>>18537632
>My will, I, can choose whether to indulge it or suppress it.
An assumption. How do you know someone else is not controlling you to determine these decisions? How do you know something else isn't determining these decisions and the correspondance between what you feel and your emotions are a mere conincidence? I also see you have assumed all other effects are from other wills. How do you prove the existence of something outside your scope of knowledge? How do you know another will is not comtrolling the phenomena in you? I don't think philosophy is for you.

[Anonymous No.18537694]

Even though you say you're not a nihilist, this post heavily implies that you think like one. It's just not useful to yourself and anyone else to think like that. People think what they think, but I've learned that you have to condition your body like you would a dog. Physically do things that you know will help you, even if your mind is trying to stop it. Do something worth fucking doing. Do something that scares the shit out of you, but you know will make you stronger and feel accomplished. It's a lazy way to look at the world. It's all just "stuff". You sound like a child.

[Anonymous No.18537713]

>>18534120
What a lazy way to look at reality. You have nothing else to compare your reality to. To think that everything is meaningless is assuming that you know what is truly real. It's no different from stubbornly believing that there's a heaven or hell, or a god. Being humble and knowing that you don't know everything should be everyone's default. Being excited for possibility is a better path than thinking any possibility is futile.

[Anonymous No.18537718]

>>18537658
>You can only percieve the emotion, not the fact that it causes you to do anything.
Incorrect, again, I just told you this is only the case for NPCs. If I choose to allow an emotion to guide my will, I am fully aware of its influence.
>Again, you cannot tell the difference between two moments one following another and one causing another
Already made redundant by basic philosophy such as Kant. Answer: There is no difference, and time can only flow in one direction for us, ergo even successive moments of time are necessarily causally connected via manifold.
My own answer: Due to my own ability to will and determine events in the manifold of time, causality can be directly inferred to persist both with respect to myself (my will) and phenomenal reality, which is a manifestation of my the cause determined by my will.
>Even Nietzsche would agree with me
Nietzsche specifically states that cause and effect, in the Spinozist sense, are all that exist, and that there is no subject (I) or noumenon. He wouldn't agree with either of us.
>There is no mode of perception which would make you be able to percieve determination.
Yes there is, I've just explained this. And the only reason Nietzsche made it an "assumption" is because he didn't want to make the argument I'm making right now, because in philosophy everyone is obsessed with "formal proofs." Either that or the reason I just gave, his negation of the subject (which is itself ridiculous).
>>18537685
>How do you know someone else is not controlling you to determine these decisions?
Because I know that it is me who is willing the action, through direct perception. If I didn't perceive that it was me, it would not be me.

[Anonymous No.18537722]

>>18537591

[Anonymous No.18537730]

>>18537718
>If I choose to allow an emotion to guide my will, I am fully aware of its influence.
bullshit

[Anonymous No.18537758]

>>18537730
No, it's the same reason people demand justice when a man kills his wife in a fit of rage. He still makes the choice to allow those violent emotions to influence his actions.

[Anonymous No.18537779]

you are still sufficiently beguiled by "stuff" to consider partaking in it so maybe you aren't as ethereal and dispassionate as you think

[Anonymous No.18537833]

>>18537718
>Nietzsche specifically states that cause and effect, in the Spinozist sense, are all that exist, and that there is no subject (I) or noumenon. He wouldn't agree with either of us.
That is already imminent to his theory of will to power. You are confusing Nietzsche justifying his theory with him describing his theory.
>Already made redundant by basic philosophy such as Kant. Answer: There is no difference, and time can only flow in one direction for us, ergo even successive moments of time are necessarily causally connected via manifold
Not true. In kant there are causal laws which determine how time unfolds. Everything isn't just necessarily connected with everything else willy-nilly, it is connected by specific laws which exist within us. Of course this is just as stupid because the problem of induction still happens which kant tries to derive synthetic a priori causal laws.
>Due to my own ability to will and determine events in the manifold of time (not proven), causality can be directly inferred to persist both with respect to myself (my will) (which I can somehow know is my own influence and not another influence) and phenomenal reality (I can somehow magically see what things cause what), which is a manifestation of my the cause determined by my will.
You just implied that your will exists outside phenomenal reality (that which you can know). I arrest my case.
>I am fully aware of its influence
Saying you are fully aware of something does not imply you are fully aware of something. Just because you "feel" that two things are connected is meaningless. It's like trying to prove god by saying I have faith in him.
>Yes there is, I've just explained this.
You "explained" nothing. You simply continue to harp on "I know it! I know it!" Even though you provide no way of showing it.
>Because I know that it is me who is willing the action, through direct perception. If I didn't perceive that it was me, it would not be me.
How do you percieve this? Do you have another sense which tells you what caused what? How do you know this sense is reliable and truthful? What if an evil demon is controlling you and making you feel like you have control? Again, you cannot directly see what causes what. If you could, science would be a lot easier. As of now, you are confusing you having faith that you cause something with knowing you cause something.

[Anonymous No.18537840]

>>18537758
You can't prove it's him making the choice, idiot.

[Anonymous No.18537901]

>>18537833
> it is connected by specific laws which exist within us
It makes no difference. Time is still causally successive.
>Of course this is just as stupid because the problem of induction still happens
Uh, yes? Induction is inevitable with respect to empirical science, it's a problem with formal epistemology and not metaphysics. This isn't relevant to the causal succession of time.
>You just implied that your will exists outside phenomenal reality (that which you can know)
The will is irreducible. I cannot assert where it exists, just that it exists. There is a similar (yet different) issue with the "problem" of consciousness and qualia. You cannot even theoretically prove that they exist empirically, yet they exist. With respect to the distinction between "will" and phenomenal reality, you can take that to mean mind, mental, and perception of non-mind, phenomenal. There is nothing questionable about this distinction, just the admission that there is mental (subjective) and non-mental ("objective").
>(I can somehow magically see what things cause what)
That is not what I said. I said I can will changes which I know and determine in advance, which means that mind and will must have accurate correspondences between itself and perception ("objectivity"). This does not solve the problem of induction, it merely proves the objective existence of causes through the use of mind and will with respect to non-mind and non-will.
>I arrest my case.
lol
>Saying you are fully aware of something does not imply you are fully aware of something.
Yes it does. Are you conscious or not? The answer is yes or no.
>>18537840
No, but I can prove that it would be me making the choice if I were in his situation, as I've already done. In that particular example, it's a matter of putting yourself in his shoes and understanding that, given that you were in the same situation, you would have the potential not to act if your will was strong enough. That's not proof of HIM making the choice in that given example, because we can't know other people's minds, it's just a practical consequence of understanding what the will is in yourself.

[Anonymous No.18538053]

>>18537833
>Again, you cannot directly see what causes what.
Btw, you seem to be hung up on this point. Your idea is that that because you cannot see how other causal mechanisms occur, thus causality doesn't exist at all. Of course we can't see what causes what with respect to other entities. We can only know what we cause through the will. Apart from that, we merely assume x causes y based on induction, which is rooted in the fundamental causative power we possess. Without causality as a fundamental metaphysical underpinning, induction itself would not even work, because it relies upon the existence of causality to even possess validity as a method of knowledge.
>What if an evil demon is controlling you and making you feel like you have control?
Does causality exist or not? If a demon is controlling my will, that would mean causality exists. And if this were the case, then the demon and I would be one and the same thing, because our will is virtually indistinguishable, so it doesn't refute my arguments. It's the same problem of arguing that consciousness is an illusion. If it is an illusion, then what is perceiving the illusion?

[Anonymous No.18538075]

>>18537901
>It makes no difference. Time is still causally successive.
It makes a massive difference, because only certain objects are causally connected to other objects. Just because one thing comes after another doesn't imply one is the cause of the other. Is the beating of a flies wings a second before a star a lightyear away from it blows up the sufficient cause of the star blowing up? No, because not every time a fly beats its wings does a star a lightyear away explode. Plus, this would be an impossibility under empirical science, the very science Kant is trying to support, and would contradict fundamental synthetic a priori propositions which Kant declares true! So your position on causality is not only nonsense, but has absolutely nothing to do with Kant's.
It seems you are confusing Time having a successive nature with time having a causal nature. These two things are very different. The former merely necessitates that for any moment of time, one will succeed it. The latter necessitates that the content of these moments is inextricably linked in certain patterns. So they are completely different.You cannot start from time and get causality from it, since time merely necessiates succession and not causation. This means you need to start from somewhere else but the concept of time to derive causality from, which is what you have attempted to do.
>Uh, yes? Induction is inevitable with respect to empirical science, it's a problem with formal epistemology and not metaphysics. This isn't relevant to the causal succession of time.
It is relevant to Kant's metaphysics, which seeks to prove a set of propositions as synthetic a priori propositions. I was simply showing where Kant went astray from reason.
>>You just implied that your will exists outside phenomenal reality (that which you can know)
>The will is irreducible. I cannot assert where it exists, just that it exists. There is a similar (yet different) issue with the "problem" of consciousness and qualia. You cannot even theoretically prove that they exist empirically, yet they exist. With respect to the distinction between "will" and phenomenal reality, you can take that to mean mind, mental, and perception of non-mind, phenomenal. There is nothing questionable about this distinction, just the admission that there is mental (subjective) and non-mental ("objective").
I can prove qualia and consciousness by direct experience. I cannot prove "will" or connection of determination by direct experience because there is no attribute of either which is observable. That implies that any imagination of knowing will you have is a mistake. I, again, arrest my case like the case is george floyd.
>Yes it does. Are you conscious or not? The answer is yes or no.
That you say "I see a god!!!" does nto mean you actually see a god. It has nothing to do with consciousness and was a very simple comment.

[Anonymous No.18538089]

>>18537901
>No, but I can prove that it would be me making the choice if I were in his situation, as I've already done
You haven't proved this. You have simply said "I know it! I know it!" and that is supposed to account for a proof lol. The problem is there is nothing observable about a connection of determination, and if there is list the attributes that are imminent to it that are observable and from which you could deduce that there is, here, a connection of determination. If you can't do this, then I have sufficiently proven you are wrong. I will not speak to you further until you provide an answer.

[Anonymous No.18538096]

>>18538089
This should go without saying, but I am him:
>>18538075

[Anonymous No.18538108]

>>18538075
>>18538053
>>18537901
>>18537833
>>18537718
>>18537685
It seriously pisses me off adderall was invented, it's been the cause of so much shit content in the world.

[Anonymous No.18538146]

>>18538053
I didn't see this comment, so I will reply to it I guess:
>Does causality exist or not? If a demon is controlling my will, that would mean causality exists.
Yes, for the demon. Not for you.
>If a demon is controlling my will, that would mean causality exists.
Again, only for the demon.
>And if this were the case, then the demon and I would be one and the same thing, because our will is virtually indistinguishable, so it doesn't refute my arguments.
That the will is indistinguishable (aka that there is no perceptual difference) is my whole point! In this case, one would observe oneself having all the power, when one really has none! The demon in you wouldn't become one and the same thing, for the demon is seperate from you, and causing you to do things. The demon here has the causal power and you have none, but it still appears to you like you do have it! This completely refutes your arguments, because then you would have no "causal power" while it still APPEARING AS you do!

[Anonymous No.18538153]

>>18538146
>The demon in you
the demon and you*

You are, in this case, the bitch of the demon and you don't even know it! A completely different connection of causality is happening than that which you think is happening!

[Anonymous No.18538167]

>>18538053
I find it funny that you hit upon the very reason I disagree with you and admit it as true (that being controlled and controlling is indistinguishable) yet still continue to think that you are right!

I guess I will take this as an admission of defeat. Unless you disagree with yourself from a few minutes ago, my work here is complete.

[Anonymous No.18538206]

>>18534120
You’re being mindfucked by arbitrary mental categories. The majority of the universe is inexpressible in language and cannot be accurately modelled by the limited human mind, but your mind will nonetheless try to convince you that everything fits into a familiar and comprehensible pattern; “we know all about this stuff.” This is to cope with chaos.

Try to approach the world without this “I’ve seen it all” attitude and just go with the flow. Let it surprise you. Go out of your way to experience things that are wildly outside of your everyday experience. It should shock and invigorate your blood, and remind you that the world is massive and varied, and that much is charged with sacred energy

[Anonymous No.18538212]

>>18538206
good post

[Anonymous No.18538216]

>>18538206
>t this “I’ve seen it all” attitude and just go with the flow. Let it surprise you. Go out of your way to experience things that are wildly outside of your everyday experience. It should shock and invigorate your blood
what the fuck, go where and do what? I really have seen everything that would 'invigorate my blood'

[Anonymous No.18538242]

>>18538075
>It makes a massive difference
No, it doesn't. Because the content of frames within time and space are linked between moments, necessarily (in Kant's framework) by the synthesis of the manifold, and are therefore linked according to cause and effect. Ergo, even if the laws of causality applying to things we perceive are "mere rules of our own mind", they are still just as valid as if they were rules of reality/phenomena themselves (ignoring the domain of speculative metaphysics, which is the only reason Kant wanted to make this distinction). For our purposes, speculative metaphysics is not relevant, so we can go ahead and say Kant's idealist/realist distinction does not affect us for the purposes of the current discussion. And again, you've brought up the problem of induction, which is not relevant to our discussion. It is mere epistemology, not relevant to whether or not cause and effect actually exists (if anything, it presupposes it).
>It seems you are confusing Time having a successive nature with time having a causal nature.
I stated at the start that they are one and the same thing, because you cannot distinguish between the two types. Time by its nature is both "causal" and "successive", it cannot be one or the other because that is simply the only way we can experience anything. There is continuity between each point in time, there are no breakups (which would both imply non-succession and non-causality), which shows that time must either be both successive and causal or non-successive and non-causal. We know it is successive, so we know it is causal, because they are one and the same thing. An object that remains unacted upon (this includes net forces summing to zero) will remain where it is in the succession of time, and vice versa: This is all I am asserting. I am not asserting I can know exactly what acts upon it, and thus that the problem of induction is solved.
>It is relevant to Kant's metaphysics, which seeks to prove a set of propositions as synthetic a priori propositions.
The problem of induction is not relevant to his metaphysics. It is related, in general, but not actually relevant to his a priori deduction of cause-and-effect. Again, I'm not arguing that Kant solves the "induction problem" either.
>I can prove qualia and consciousness by direct experience. I cannot prove "will" or connection of determination by direct experience because there is no attribute of either which is observable.
Ok, so you're an NPC. We already had this discussion. You can't perceive will, and I can.
>That you say "I see a god!!!" does nto mean you actually see a god
It would if that were what I were claiming, which I'm not. Will has everything to do with consciousness, because they are tied up together and co-dependent and perceptable, unlike God (unless one considers him tied up in a more abstract and imperceptible sense, which wouldn't be relevant to this discussion).
>>18538108
I'm not on adderall, I'm bored. I've never used stims.

[Anonymous No.18538243]

>>18538216
>I really have seen everything that would 'invigorate my blood'
t. sheltered first world 20-something

[Anonymous No.18538296]

>>18538146
>Yes, for the demon. Not for you.
Correct.
>Again, only for the demon.
Correct.
>That the will is indistinguishable (aka that there is no perceptual difference) is my whole point!
No, it isn't, because we have still established that it is my will, just in this case I also happen to be a demon . All you've done in this hypothetical scenario is prove that I am a demon, which we could equally do with an angel. It makes no difference and you haven't proven or disproven anything.
>>18538167
See above. "Controlled" is always passive, for example being controlled by hunger, which is external and inflicted. "Control" is always active, it is your own will. The differences must be directly perceived to be understood, just as white and black must be perceived to be understood as opposites. If a demon were to "take control of me", either my will would disappear, or I would have always been that demon to begin with (this latter option however would obviously contradict the premise, however it doesn't if that demon "were always in control of me", as was implied by the original hypothetical scenario, in which case I was always that demon to begin with, which ultimately makes little difference unless there is some ontological category necessarily belonging to demons which establishes something particular about them that I was not aware of up until now).

[Anonymous No.18538300]

>>18538243
>t. sheltered first world 20-something
wrong.
Post an example of something you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.18538357]

>>18534120
This thread is pure autism. Please delete it.

[Anonymous No.18538393]

>>18538216
You are absolutely insufferable. Im actually glad you are going through this and I hope it gets worse.

[Anonymous No.18538497]

>>18534973
Removes the cumbrain fog and helps you to be more productive.

[Anonymous No.18538503]

>>18534120
This is the literature board. Talk about an anti-stuff author or stfu.

[Anonymous No.18538655]

>>18538503
>anti-stuff autho
Me. I cite my collected rants.

[Anonymous No.18538673]

>>18537393
By stuff I don't mean matter but anything that exist.

[Anonymous No.18538700]

>>18537694
>Do something worth fucking doing
>>18538206
>Go out of your way to experience things that are wildly outside of your everyday experience
I have though. I'm full of stories, both fictional and actual, some I can't tell or don't even want to. It's just an observation. In the end I'll keep trying but it seems like an undefeatable truth and a weird iron aspect of reality.

[Anonymous No.18538707]

>>18534169
>youll understand when youre older
I feel I'm the same person I was 6 years ago, minus experience

[Anonymous No.18538712]

>>18534283
>A good cook changes his knife once a year — because he cuts. A mediocre cook changes his knife once a month — because he hacks
This is true for any hobby or practice to be honest, you don't need the best equipment, just the method

[Anonymous No.18538723]

>>18534284
>>18534430
I guess I should just stop thinking about it, not like this realization will "satisfy" me. It's a pointless and stupid exercise.

>>18535093
I acknowledge that.

[Anonymous No.18538732]

>>18536354
Perhaps what you are trying to say is because we don't have a belief and a purpose forced upon us due to the subjections of society we lack a necessary guide to point us in the right direction and our freedom just leaves us lost because everything seems infinite, and ironically we go nowhere because of that.

[Anonymous No.18538737]

>>18537335
I would like a girl. I make art, I write short stories and poetry, and I want to learn a few other crafts. But it still is just stuff no matter what.

[Anonymous No.18538740]

>>18537352
Well at least I was on to something. I often find this has happened to me on several other occasions in which I did not know of a philosophers opinion on things or even of the philosopher yet came to the same conclusion, but I guess the best philosophers just recognize things we all subconsciously see and put it into words.

[Anonymous No.18538750]

>>18537591
It's not just "da jews" it's the Freemasons and a myriad of other characters. And even if they all left we would still have these problems.

[Anonymous No.18538762]

>>18537779
I'm not. I am a human influenced by stuff. I can overcome the "material" probably but even that would be just trying to gain "spiritual" stuff. I could just stop doing anything at all and never move again and let the forces outside myself push me along but I don't want to do that and i could not.

[N M . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.18539311]

>>18538732
It is true that pessimal circumstantial, and conditional, factors contribute to what you describe, however, again, ultimately, it is up to the individual to reconcile himself with himself; there is no shortness of inspirational figures, it is merely a matter of making an effort to sift out the trash of the world, and to fix one's life.

>>18538762
Spiration/syntheosis is akin to a dance, not to accumulation, nor to consumption; your problem is that you have not yet recognized your heart —where the seed of love gets planted—, and, subsequently, have not found your voice.

[Anonymous No.18539395]

>>18534120
>>18534144
>It doesn't matter, but I simply MUST tell you it doesn't matter don't you see! I'm emotional about that which doesn't matter but my being tired of that which doesn't matter does because it's ME we're talking about!
Shut the fuck up faggot.

[Anonymous No.18539401]

>>18539395
Nigger

[Anonymous No.18539409]

>>18539311
>it is merely a matter of making an effort to sift out the trash of the world, and to fix one's life.
This is true. There is so much stuff but there is little that is actually worth engaging with. I saw quote posted around here once about how one becomes intelligent when they learn to appreciate less or something along those lines, can't find it.

[Anonymous No.18539410]

>>18538737
Dude, shut the fuck up.

[Anonymous No.18539411]

>>18539401
10/10 response unironically. You're gonna be alright.

[Anonymous No.18539463]

>>18539410
It seems people hate you here if you are honest. You are obliged to hide behind several layers of irony and vulgar language. Well I won't be.

[Anonymous No.18539489]

>>18539463
No, people hate you here because you have the mentality of a retarded teenager. STUFF STUFF I DONT LIKE STUFF OH NOO. Shut the fuck up and figure it out you autist faggot.

[Anonymous No.18539559]

>>18539489
>you have the mentality of a retarded teenager
I'm just throwing ideas around you stale fucking mongrel. Having an open outlook does not make me a "teenager." Go watch some porn or something your good at you fucking gorilla nigger.

[N M . !!GgBWHLRiayD No.18539761]

>>18539409
>I saw quote posted around here once about how one becomes intelligent when they learn to appreciate less or something along those lines...
I ignore to what quote you are referring, but, regardless of that, it is rather a matter of what one appreciates, since, contrarily, appreciation of, and gratitude for, noble essence, intensifies in direct proportion to entelechial conversion —which, in turn, is inversely proportional to aging.

The sky is only as beautiful as the eyes are inspirited to vision it; there is always at least a part of the sky that fulfills one’s ambient request.

[Anonymous No.18539793]

>>18534120
This is your brain on anime

[Anonymous No.18539814]

>>18539559
Reddit

[Anonymous No.18539937]

>>18539761
>The sky is only as beautiful as the eyes are inspirited to vision it; there is always at least a part of the sky that fulfills one’s ambient request.
I get this, I like the sky, but I have to walk to a certain location in town to see the sun as it is going down. Same as how I just walk around the blocks I find aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.18540001]

>>18539814
>i have no argument thus I am going to tell you to go to another site

[Anonymous No.18540013]

>>18539793
Haven't watch an anime series since more than a year ago. I just like using the pictures.

[Anonymous No.18540125]

>>18534120
Being human means bearing the brunt of human cognition and it's weaknesses. We know that we cannot know. We know that we are not omniscient. Abstracting the existence of the universe as merely "stuff" is to invalidate the existence of the universe in a way that is far more anthropocentric than you realize. Even you said it yourself:

> I can't transcend this caring about stuff even though I'm aware of it.

Being human means bearing the brunt of human cognition. Part of this task is managing the capacity to care for things that are not just survival.

There is also something to mention about the state of being human, also. Our reality is layered over with thoughts, concepts, and ideas; noospheres both local and global intersect in a way that is both inextricable and invisible. Which is to say that we live in a world of ideas, and many of these ideas can be considered "stuff". Which is then to say, you can't escape it, if your entire existence is built around and of "stuff".

> I'm not a nihilist

No. At least nihilism acknowledges the existence of the universe. Your viewpoint on reality pushes you closer to ontology.

[Anonymous No.18540276]

>>18534120
>>18540125
It is neither true nor false that everything is simply "stuff", but it is certainly a cognitive bias and a dangerous and overtly reductive point of view. I suspect this is your problem, OP: you liberally amplify the inherent inessentiality of reality in a way that dominates your viewpoint with little to no room, because the counterpoint that "stuff" is not simply "stuff" is...dangerous? Frightening? Personal?

Regardless, your objectivity is not objectivity but a dismissal of the question, "What does this matter?"

You could choose to denounce my comments by saying it is simply "stuff". But then, you are riding down a slippery slope, too: What of your own, original claim? Is that not "stuff" also? Are your actions, your intentions, your set of actions that led you here, simply "stuff"?

This is why I (implicitly) say it is dangerous. You invalidate your reality. And then you invalidate yourself.

[Anonymous No.18540690]

>>18540276
Its because hes a worthless shit.

[Anonymous No.18540706]

>>18540001
Already outlined my point you git.

[Anonymous No.18540747]

>>18534120
Read Uncle Ted.

[Anonymous No.18542229]

>>18540747
I did

[Anonymous No.18542263]

>>18540276
>But then, you are riding down a slippery slope, too: What of your own, original claim? Is that not "stuff" also? Are your actions, your intentions, your set of actions that led you here, simply "stuff"?
And all that is true within the confines of this philosophy.

>This is why I (implicitly) say it is dangerous.
It is. It's just sometimes I feel like it is stupid to care at all but it is just a passing idea.

[Anonymous No.18542379]

>>18535650
Kys frog loving freak. I’d love to give you an uppercut to fix that lazy eyes of yours sharte

[Anonymous No.18542720]

>>18542229
Shut the fuck up you pseud

[Anonymous No.18542774]

>>18542720
I did though I'm not lying., I read Industrial Society and It's Future. You are probably going to say it is because I lack fulfillment of the power process is why I am so dissatisfied with existing.

[Anonymous No.18542785]

>>18542774
Bro, face it.. you just have a worthless brain. It doesnt want you to continue on you should indulge it and kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.18542803]

>>18542785
>Bro, face it.. you just have a worthless brain
Your brain is fucking worthless because you cannot think about the hypothetical or understand why it is of interest to me. I've said numerous times I don't plan on living this philosophy but it was simply an observation.

[Anonymous No.18542922]

>>18542803
Seethe and cope you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.18543881]

>>18537654
just switch the images

[Anonymous No.18544182]

>>18534158
>dude just like move and all the bad shit goes away
I wish it was this simple

[Anonymous No.18544624]

>>18534120
Everything you wrote is just stuff. Everything you think is just stuff.

[Anonymous No.18544741]

You’re me 3 years ago. I can’t say I’ve found a solution to this unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.18544800]

>>18538740
Well, kind of. I've learned in my studies that to be a philosophers is not only to see these self evident, immediate things (things being just anything you can point to) but to critically explain them, reasonably; just pointing at things, like reading a book and knowing immediately what is said without thinking, is like proving gravitation by seeing the apple fall. Anyone can see the apple fall but explaining it goes beyond the physical and beyond just the symbolical and immediate.
You need to conceptualize, think, relate, reference and implicate, look even further when you want to truly understand and know. It's all rather difficult to explain, even for philosophers, and I don't think anyone has adequately explained yet why we need to think critically, why we should and necessarily have to, to understand any-thing we before selected and intended to explain.
Kant explained what it is to be critically and most everyone since him has done the same; the Greeks explained why you should think critically but they had no reason but for it being Good. You can take these two as anchors and relate the notions these exemplify to any of the two to see where they belong.
But these are just two anchors and as far as I am concerned there is no bridge between them. Be part of the cult and of course you'll worship their God, join the cult and do the same; but how do you come to the point, that understanding; how do you even just come to read, learn? If we knew that we could also know why it is good to think critically, philosophically in general further; and this would be an argument, the ultimate argument, against our modern society which rejects this science in favor of just research which is the consumerist expression of knowing, and not this pure knowing of that special understanding (begreifen).

[Anonymous No.18544848]

>>18534120
AHP -

You lost the game.

In addition to being docked for using curse words, and stepping on sidewalk cracks, I also hereby officially tax you for not maximizing the utility value of savouring the wonder, joy, and adventure of life, the everyday life experience, especially without acknowledging a magickal reality, in life, the universe, and everything.

[Anonymous No.18545006]

>>18534120
Friend,

There is one philosopher at least who had a goal that was not stuff, Schopenhauer. The end goal of Schopenhauer’s philosophy was to put an end to the stuff by negating the cause of stuff, the human will, and so ending the hymn understanding which divides the world into stuff, and the world itself.

Schopenhauer thought you could achieve this through ascetic denial of the will, and once you emptied the will from you, what was left was nothing, “but to the one who has emptied themselves or the will, this world, with all its sins and galaxies [and stuff] is nothing.”

A less hopeful worldview and one that points out the same thing, that spiritual goals are themselves a quest for stuff, is U.G Krishnamurti. He said there was no way out. His book the mystique of enlightenment is hilarious and disconcerting and he has numerous clips on youtube of him speaking. Hearing someone totally affirm this worldview can be comforting. It can help to live not in conflict with reality.

U.G did think you could escape this process of just searching for stuff, but it was basically by pure chance that he returned to the natural state.

Godspeed,
anon

[Anonymous No.18545158]

>>18534120
But every one of those stuffs is independent of the other stuff - in that they're all a different kind and unique kind of stuff

That should be appreciated I believe

[Anonymous No.18545984]

>>18544800
Didnt read, cope and sneed.

[Anonymous No.18546213]

>>18534120
you know what isn't stuff? raw emotion, perception. The feeling when I rev the fuck out my car and it backfires making that glorious pop. When I look into my gfs eyes and she looks and me, and we hold it. When I take a bite of icecream and it tastes really fucking good. The color of green the sunlight makes as it filters through the trees making tunnels on the backroads where I live. the scent of an approaching storm. lightning and thunder. It's all so beautiful, and it isn't just stuff.

[Anonymous No.18546298]

>>18546213
t. Reddit fag

[Anonymous No.18546310]

>>18546213
One if the gayest things ive ever read hahaha.

[Anonymous No.18546340]

>>18546213
You may be kind of gay but I agree with you tbqh

[Anonymous No.18546417]

>>18546213
ultimate reddit post

[Anonymous No.18546444]

>>18546213
Based unironically

[Anonymous No.18546550]

>>18546417
How is finding joy in life reddit? Are you implying that you are a miserable faggot who's only pastime is mental masturbation?

[Anonymous No.18546565]

>>18546444
trips of truth

[Anonymous No.18546616]

>>18546550
if you dont understand what about that post is reddit, i cant help you.

[Anonymous No.18546842]

>>18546616
Your post is reddit. You are summoning the same gay hivemind that makes reddit so insufferable with a lazy, unoriginal post. A downvote in text.

[Anonymous No.18547113]

>>18534120
it is annoying that i'm gonna die and there will be no 'nothing' after death because there will still be stuff existing even if i am not aware of it. why the fuck does it exist? who created it? why? i won't ever know, fuck stuff.

[Anonymous No.18547130]

I am tired of threads that don't belong on /lit and lazy tranny jannies.

[Anonymous No.18547135]

sounds like you're ready to move past stuff and start living.

[Anonymous No.18547185]

>>18547130
This is one of the worst threads to curse /lit/ lately. Especially since people are taking it seriously.

[Anonymous No.18548647]

>>18534120
>everything is nondescript and mundane
anon sorry to say but youve been lobotomized. if you got punched youd recoil and whine. and here you would differentiate with pain and not-pain, and prefer not-pain. it isnt just stuff, youre just disengaged because youre disaffected. youre disaffected because youre withdrawn. its ultimately your choice to participate and involve yourself in the world or not. this post seems like a cry for help. if you want something that isnt mundane search for the supermundane. otherwise remain a plant brain as you seem to want to be.

[Anonymous No.18549662]

>>18540013
>Haven't watch an anime series since more than a year ago.
that is extremely recent
>I just like using the pictures.
that is exactly what he is talking about

[Anonymous No.18549717]

>>18534120
Congratulations you invented Buddhism

[Anonymous No.18549888]

>>18534120
Read Plato

[Anonymous No.18550499]

>>18534162
How to do it at home?

[Anonymous No.18550504]

>>18549717
Everything is muh Buddyism nowadays.

[Anonymous No.18550640]

>>18548647
> if you got punched youd recoil and whine

This
Real-life seesm to come back once you're put in an actual situation where you're required to give effort with potential consequences

[Anonymous No.18551044]

>>18534120
It is not all just "stuff", the problem is that you're over-stimulated with an over abundance of "stuff" so you cannot derive substance from what's around you. You're not experiencing "stuff". It's the "stuff" that's experiencing and also shaping you. That's what it is to be a slave. But don't worry, almost everyone is in the same boat. Some are just conscious about it.

[Anonymous No.18551248]

>>18534120
Somewhere, in your own subjective and individual existence, there is foundation that build up to this rather logical conclusion within that subjective box.

Problem is what makes that foundation? How did you arrive at that starting point? What is even the purpose of self limitation? You think it's razors edge or something to behave irrationally due to seemingly logical train of though that only works withing confined space and arbitrary conditions you set up yourself?

Do you even imagine how your posts projects itself, rather you as a person?

Rather this is the problem, you are arrogant, pretentious and have no humility, wisdom and love. If you did, you'd accept life for what it is and learn along the way as a student of life.

[Anonymous No.18551712]

I am convinced nobody here actually wants to play with the idea, because their egos are in the way, and want to feel like a self improvenent guru. Especially the masturbation tripfag.
>>18534120
Anon, what are the properties of this "stuff"? What makes something a "stuff"? or at least, what does a "stuff" lack?

[Anonymous No.18551732]

>>18551712
"Stuff" is sheer existence, and sheer existence which proceeds from one who is eternal, absolute, absurd and contradictory in nature.

What is there to talk about except the way he most likely uses his intellectually infantile conclusions as rationalizations for his life?

[Anonymous No.18551973]

Get a gf anon. Don't just get laid. Get into an intimate, romantic relationship with a woman.

[Anonymous No.18551990]

>>18551973
>Get a gf anon. Don't just get laid. Get into an intimate, romantic relationship with a woman.
at least he won't be tired anymore

[Anonymous No.18552467]

>>18551973
This only works for faggot incels, normal people still struggle in life even with successful relationships. Bad advice from a nigger.

[Anonymous No.18552480]

>>18551712
Actually nobody wants to "play" with the idea because its fucking stupid, you need to go back.