/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22540907]

Why are people inclined to adhere strictly to one set of beliefs instead of synthesizing multiple systems and living their own way? /lit/ is a prime example of this, everyone insists that their philosopher is the correct and true one while all the others are fools. History reflects it too. This doesn't seem conducive to a good life.

[Anonymous No.22540912]

>>22540907
Who wants to be a dilettante?

[Anonymous No.22540945]

>>22540907
Synthesizing belief systems is the most dominant and strictest dogma of all. Anyone else is an outlier, and probably part of some monastic order.

[Anonymous No.22541548]

>>22540907
I synthesize Gasset and Freud

[Anonymous No.22541683]

>>22540907
I synthesize my dick and ur mom

[Anonymous No.22541692]

>>22540907
Basically every belief is a synthesis of something else

[Anonymous No.22541705]

>>22540907

People do synthesize multiple systems and live their specific way without even trying, it's just a matter of doing so actively vs. passively and along other spectra related to personal blood character. Marshall McLuhan warned us but we didn't listen.

[Anonymous No.22541984]

>>22540945
>>22541692
>>22541705
You're all right.
A better follow up question: why do many people actively attempt to push one objective system when they are passively synthesizing many?

[Anonymous No.22542030]

>>22540907
A powerful physiognomy excepting the slightly pinched gaze

[Anonymous No.22542036]

>>22541548
I synthesize Montaigne and Bataille

[Anonymous No.22542040]

>>22540907

If you synthesize multiple systems, how do you minimize contridictions?

[Anonymous No.22542042]

>>22540907
For me, it’s Emerson, Thoreau, Marx, Freud, Jung, Seneca, and Paracelsus

[Anonymous No.22542052]

Philosophers do exactly this. As for why laymen don’t do it, it’s because they’re laymen. They’re neither trained nor apt to find common threads, compare and contrast, synthesize, or do any of those things that a philosopher might do. And when they try, you often get retarded shit like “MAGA Communism”.

[Anonymous No.22542386]

>>22540912
Don't pretend you have a choice

[Anonymous No.22542388]

I don't have a philosopher, I think philosophy is a waste of time

[Anonymous No.22542432]

>>22541984
>A better follow up question: why do many people actively attempt to push one objective system when they are passively synthesizing many?
For more than one reason. We're generally brought up to adhere to particularly rigid systems, so we seek that as a crutch later on as well. It's that later on it doesn't necessarily come from parents, but we use the same type of thinking anyway and just read through stuff and create rigid systems on our own while often maintaining all sorts of tensions and cognitive dissonances.

[Anonymous No.22542457]

>>22542432
I would say it is more pragmatic than that, the vast bulk of society is not going to listen to you explain your personal belief system or even the ways in which it differs from what ever commonly known system it is closest to. So people use the stereotype and accept that anyone who is going to see them as nothing more than the stereotype is probably not worth the time. For the majority of people stereotypes are just a simple way to sift through it all and avoid wasting their time on relationships with people who are unlikely to yield anything of worth.

[Anonymous No.22542493]

>>22542457
>the vast bulk of society is not going to listen to you explain your personal belief system or even the ways in which it differs from what ever commonly known system it is closest to
I know you're not directing this at me necessarily, but I have no need to explain my beliefs to the "bulk of society". It's too abstract of a concept, and I try not to deal with those. What's most important is the close community in my surrounding. In a smaller circle which prevents the mass non-sense that is going on at the moment.
>For the majority of people stereotypes are just a simple way to sift through it all and avoid wasting their time on relationships with people who are unlikely to yield anything of worth.
Far from it. Majority of people cannot sift through pretty much anything with any degree of reliability. They act as unconscious machines that work in accordance with their programming - biological, upbringing, and societal. There is nothing they can "do" on their own. So, no, they cannot generally even know what is "anything of worth".
There are people who can but we aren't talking about people that are the general type.

[Anonymous No.22542506]

>>22542493
> They act as unconscious machines that work in accordance with their programming - biological, upbringing, and societal.
Ironic statement because I don’t see how having a supposed thought out world-view would transcend this at all.

[Anonymous No.22542509]

>>22542506
>Ironic statement because I don’t see how having a supposed thought out world-view would transcend this at all.
I didn't say or suggest that having a thought out worldview transcends this. It doesn't.

[Anonymous No.22542513]

>>22540907
Because adhering to a single system of beliefs allows you to adhere to and aesthetic through which you present yourself to others. The entire point of philosophy is to give yourself a label you and others like you find aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.22542523]

>>22542513
Interesting thought, but what if I present myself differently to different people?

[Anonymous No.22542525]

>>22540907
This. Also, why do people prefer their own race instead of synthesizing all races and making the world shit-brown?

[Anonymous No.22542543]

>>22542523
It shows that you are using different made-up selves to present to different people/groups of people. For some you use the philosopher, for some you use something else.

[Anonymous No.22542567]

>>22542543
That sounds right, but how would I be able to distinguish between the real philosopher and the made-up selves?

[Anonymous No.22542579]

>>22542509
Then why the condescending tone?

[Anonymous No.22542580]

>>22542567
There is no real philosopher. Philosopher is a label that is provisional, transitory, and you exist without being a philosopher.
If the question is more toward how you know you're really doing philosophy rather than engaging in a philosophy roleplay, the answer is pretty simple - you rely only on your experience.

[Anonymous No.22542585]

>>22542567
There’s no distinctions only varying grades of commitment.

[Anonymous No.22542586]

>>22542579
Let's not get into how tones can be read over text. I didn't find it condescending. I'm not up in engaging in a projection exchange.

[Anonymous No.22542604]

>>22542586
You’re supposing that there exist people that transcend the philosophical zombie existence, yet you, like anyone else, cannot offer any proof of this existing.
But before you even purport this question stand still on why you would even ask such a thing.
What is there to gain in dividing other peoples into unconscious machines, building on the assumption that there are people that are conscious, if it doesn’t even matter.

[Anonymous No.22542633]

>>22542525
Women

[Anonymous No.22542636]

>>22542604
>You’re supposing that there exist people that transcend the philosophical zombie existence, yet you, like anyone else, cannot offer any proof of this existing.
Some things, or many things in fact, do not have an empirical evidence that I could bring you on a platter. This is one of them. I'm not going to pretend that I'm in stupor as to what is happening and whether this can or cannot be transcended. I have direct experience with it, and I don't need to somehow present it to anyone to prove it.
>What is there to gain in dividing other peoples into unconscious machines, building on the assumption that there are people that are conscious, if it doesn’t even matter.
It does matter to me. It has a direct impact on my life. Dealing with conscious and unconscious people makes a lot of difference. I don't divide into those two camps strictly by the way and I don't pretend to know right away who's conscious and who's not.

[Anonymous No.22542637]

>>22542036
There’s many more though, Weber, Simmel, Nietszche, Aristotle, etc

[Anonymous No.22542667]

>>22542580
>>22542585
I like both these answers. Would each of you say they are commensurate?

[Anonymous No.22542682]

>>22542667
Probably not. The degrees are only the degrees of pathology. The healthy form is with using the labels only due to language reasons or for convenience in communication. Once there is any form of attachment to that label, it becomes unhealthy and then it just progresses into full blown illness, pathology and so on.

[Anonymous No.22542687]

>>22540907
>This doesn't seem conducive to a good life.
How so? The world has already been doing this for hundreds of years. It isn't working out for them.

[Anonymous No.22542832]

>>22542636
I tend to agree with your first point but the sceptic in me cannot accept such an infallible concept. Which is why I asked the pragmatic question what is there to gain.
And you’re right there is variation in the amount of thought people put into their daily activities. The flip side being neurotic/anxiety struck.
I’m wondering if you actually manage to balance such a view and don’t succumb to bitterness or apathy and remain compassionate.

[Anonymous No.22542883]

Whenever I read philosophy, religious texts, etc. I always pick which parts I find meaningful and apply them to my life and drop the parts that seem foolish. Always assumed most people (who read said texts) were the same.
>most genuine and constructive /lit/ thread in a while is below an OP of a redhead waif
God I love pale redheads bros why must they be recessive? Can only so much beauty populate this world

[Anonymous No.22542904]

>>22542682
I think this reflect the labels you put on yourself.
The labels other people give you would more be a reflection of your perceived efforts into whatever you’re doing.
In the end both are really vacuous beyond quick judgement or getting a gist of someone.

[Anonymous No.22542908]

>>22542904
Also a response to
>>22542667

[Anonymous No.22542994]

>>22540907
> tfw you want to synthesize the Talmud, Augustine, Calvin, Blackstone, Benjamin Franklin, Frederick Douglass, Kant, Edmund Burke, Joseph de Maistre, Marx, Lenin, Adolf Hitler, Alfred Rosenberg, Stalin, to make as much profit as possible (Talmud), promote anti-civil theological strife (Augustine), give others a sense of ontological doom (Calvin), to the very edge of the common law and legality (Blackstone), to be as individualistic as possible (Franklin) even in the most dire circumstances (Douglass), while gaslighting as many others as possible (Kant), knowing what their traditions and prejudices are (Burke, de Maistre), absolutely criticizing and demoralizing others (Marx), annihilating all belief in tradition and theology (Lenin), provoking fears of racial cuckoldry (Hitler) and racial conflict for maximum chaos (Rosenberg) while terrorizing and spreading fear to control others (Stalin) all to my advantage and others disadvantage

Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.22543584]

>>22540907
>Why are people inclined to adhere strictly to one set of beliefs instead of synthesizing multiple systems and living their own way?
Because the latter is arbitrary and often kills the main point of having any beliefs so you just become so weird pacifist hedonist.

[Anonymous No.22544221]

>>22542832
It's not a concept to me. It's transcript of my experience. I don't go around trying to apply this view somehow. I have had experiences that are mystical also. There are people that are a "different breed" if you will. As for neurotic, yeah unconscious people are by definition neurotic.
I'm not bitter or apathetic. I used to be just like those people I'm describing. I can imagine myself very clearly in their shoes.

[Anonymous No.22544227]

>>22542904
Outside labels can only he practical use such as "That guy is a doctor", so you know where to go for practical purposes. However, there is currently a massive communication problem in our societies that this seems trivial. We live in an illusion layered world, and we have pretty big issue with understanding one another.
Outside labels also spill into an inside label that we give ourselves via introjection - "I've been told many times I'm smart so I must be smart" type. That's how some of those illusions are formed.

[Anonymous No.22544259]

>>22542883
>Always assumed most people (who read said texts) were the same.
It's harder than it seems. Mainly because we bring in a lot of our own to the reading, so we don't always read with openness required to learn something new. Rather we try to reconcile what's in the book with what our rigid dumb beliefs are.
>God I love pale redheads bros why must they be recessive? Can only so much beauty populate this world
I feel you. Redheads are the bomb, though they take second place after blondes. Still a respectable silver medal though.

[Anonymous No.22544262]

gingers cure my sexism