Philosophy General

[Anonymous No.7052760]

Post OC philosophy ITT only the phreshest and sickest new thoughts allowed

[〖 ˁ˚ᴥ˚ˀ 〗 !ABC9.apel. No.7052801]

I call it reverse-Solipsism

Only other minds exist though I am unsure if my own mind does.

[Anonymous No.7052810]

LIFE IS PAIN,
A WALK IN THE RAIN;
I SELL PROPANE AND
PROPANE ACCESSORIES.

[Anonymous No.7052827]

1. Originality is overrated, worthless, and probably nonexistent.

2. If anyone had a good philosophical idea which they felt was original or independently discovered, it's probably extremely precise and not possible to describe outside of context in the limited amount of space a 4chan thread provides.

3. This isn't really literature related.

[Anonymous No.7052847]

>>7052827
Good nice i dig it

[Anonymous No.7053053]

>>7052827
>1. Originality is overrated, worthless,

indeed

creativity is the hedonist's attempt to turn hedonism into refined existence

[Anonymous No.7053104]

Collective Solipism

If humanity dies out, there is no longer a self-conscious species contemplating humanity itself, thus ending existence itself. You could compare it to a tree falling in the forest, but nobody being there to hear it.

[Anonymous No.7053108]

>>7053104
Solipsism*, my bad

[Anonymous No.7053132]

>>7053108
I think you mean imperfection in "my" own reality friend

[Anonymous No.7053207]

4chan is the cave. I very much doubt this thought is either sick or phresh but it is as relevant as ever.

You see, you are still sitting here, chained to a desk by your own bad habits and concerned only with the snippets of information flashing before you on the wall of your cave. It is impossible to know whether or not the average post has any bearing on reality yet you keep reading this shit anyway. You don't know if a fellow 4chan poster is being truthful or if they even took a split second to think before opening their pie hole. Even if they are honest then chances are good that they still don't know what the hell they are talking about. Perhaps they do know, but due to the nature of the medium they are unable to convey a helpful message through a shitty little post like this one.

/lit/ is probably one of the few boards where the effect is mitigated because posters are actually expected to read books and articles from time to time, not just regurgitate opinions they dredged up across social media.

[Anonymous No.7053224]

>>7053207

[Anonymous No.7053268]

Stirnerian-Marxism

One that doesn't believe in spooks like dialectical materialism but works towards it because its what ultimately benefits the individual.

[Anonymous No.7053271]

>>7053268
Its what would have happened if Marx didn't hurt Johann's sensitive feelings causing them to have a falling out.

[Anonymous No.7053274]

>>7053268
>>7053271
do any marxists really believe that inevitable historicism stuff. i guess i always thought marxists and hegelians werent really dumb enough to think its anything other than a useful framework for looking at change

[Anonymous No.7053275]

>>7053271
I don't think so tbh, Stirner was too much of a loner for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.7053280]

>>7053268
sacrilege as fuck

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.7054153]

>>7053280
Not at all Peepee

[Anonymous No.7054336]

The Cartesian cogitio when viewed through the ontological lens of German Idealism reveal that as the viewer of one's own consciousness, it is not true conciousness, but conscious perception of the mechanics of de facto consciousness. This when transmitted through language (in the deconstructinist trend) betrays that conscious perception is interaction with language created by objective mechanic consciousness in a phenomenogical sense as opposed to being a direct interaction with pre- existinging psychical realities.

[Anonymous No.7054358]

"Philosophy is dead" - me

[Anonymous No.7054393]

>>7054358
"You is death"
-philosophy
"I am death"
-philosophy
"Death is philosophy"
-Us
"Philosophy is death"
-We
"We are dying"
-philosophy
"We are philosophy's death"
-aristotle
"I am the death of thought"
-you
"You are the death of thought"
-me

[Anonymous No.7054425]

>>7054358

"People who quote themselves are conceited jackasses"

--Anonymous

[Anonymous No.7054881]

give thine children shoes that have carried many feet so that they may walk in faith.

[Anonymous No.7054933]

>>7054881
>self bj

[Anonymous No.7054939]

Why is there something instead of nothing?

[Anonymous No.7055304]

>>7054939
but how can you know there's something??

[Anonymous No.7055317]

Time is the biggest meme humanity ever invented. It merely defines an aspect of motion.

It's stale, and it's time we killed this overused meme once and for all.

[Anonymous No.7055373]

>>7055317
>it's time

jej

[Anonymous No.7055612]

>>7054336

Gobbledygook

[Anonymous No.7055635]

>>7055317

Both space and time are "deep metaphors;" they are inextricably embedded in our way of perceiving and, more importantly, communicating our experiences. Try and go more than a day without utilizing either a spatial or a temporal metaphor in conversation, with yourself or others. You will find it impossible.

[Anonymous No.7055640]

this isn't philosophy but i had a dream once where all of our consciousnesses were actually the skin cells of one enormous primordial being, and everyone once in a while the being would have an itch and from our perspective (the consciousnesses) some kind of natural disaster or plague would happen

[Anonymous No.7055695]

E P I C

[Anonymous No.7055782]

>>7053053
"For you," says Mummy.

[Anonymous No.7055791]

>>7052760
There is only one truth. A thought can only attempt to portray the truth, which it shall surely fall short of. A philosophical argument is likened to a thought, for it attempts to declare a truth. So, I shall show you my own OC philosophical argument, that fate is real.
1.Evaluate the following mathematical statement: x + 4
2. Evaluate the statement
x + 4 = 6
3. At time T1, when you have read the first line of this argument, you do not have enough information to determine the value of the variable x.
4. At time T2, when you have read the second line of the argument, you have acquired information that allows you to determine that the value of x is 2.
4. Though at time T1, you were unable to determine the value of x, that does not conclude that x has no value or all values. x is and always was 2.

[Anonymous No.7055796]

>>7055791
Pardon that i numbered two statements as "4".
xD

[Anonymous No.7055892]

>>7055791

This isn't an argument, it is a series of sentences and/or expressions, some of them nonsensical. For instance: 'x + 4' is not a "statement;" it is only an expression, and cannot be "evaluated."

[Anonymous No.7055920]

>>7055612
How dare you. I am the greatest mind of my generation. Please, refute my points if you're capable.

[Anonymous No.7055931]

>>7055892
You attack not the argument itself, but my word choice. You change the subject.

[Anonymous No.7055948]

>>7055920
Not OP. If I am wrong. please show me. But free will or non-determinism or whatever you wanna call it (mister semantics guy) is essentially the argument that x, being unknown, contains all possible values, it could be anything! What my argument attempts to shows is a scenario where a subjective unknown, is still an objective known.

[Anonymous No.7055957]

Why is Locke so fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.7055968]

>>7052760
a painful life is the only good life

[Anonymous No.7055988]

>>7055957

>?

[Anonymous No.7056006]

>>7054336
This isn't new, brother. This is a message to everyone: please stop picking apart the cogito. It has been dismantled by everyone for centuries and put together just as many times.

Plus, there is no step between "consciousness" and "witnessing consciousness". Stop trying to create one.

[Anonymous No.7056073]

>>7055931

Your first "premise" is literal nonsense. Even if we correct your terminology you're still in trouble. In the expression "x + 4," x, being a variable in an expression, can have literally ANY value. There's no lack of information--the expression is what it is. Including the expression in a statement, such as "x + 4 = 6," only gives a determinate value for that statement. It does not retroactively impute a value onto "x" in the bare expression "x + 4," because outside a statement, the value of x in the expression "x + 4" is indeterminate. Statements are not magical; they are true or false. Expressions are neither.

[Anonymous No.7056151]

>>7055957
How?

[Anonymous No.7056239]

>>7055920

>I am the greatest mind of my generation

How's STEM treating you, anon?

[Anonymous No.7056281]

>>7056239

Even I registered the irony, and I'm way out on the spectrum.

[Anonymous No.7056313]

>>7052801
if your mind doesnt exist then you are not perceiving those other minds in the first place you idiot

[Anonymous No.7056347]

>>7056006
When a subject perceives a lamp, it is said that they are conscious of the lamp. Here is demonstrated a metaphysical experience of interaction with the object. To say I, the subject, perceive the lamp, the object, is to demonstrate not a direct existential experience of the lamp but of an observation of the compulsory mechanics associated with being a sensory subject. Perception is determinant as is the related conception, but consciousness of said phenomena is a willed action.

[Anonymous No.7056358]

>>7056239
Mathematics is the only verifiable metaphysical conception demonstratable in a vacume. The study of it is the study of existence.

[Anonymous No.7056371]

>>7056358

Is there plenty of maths going into your bank account?

[Anonymous No.7056387]

>>7056371
just addition fam

[Anonymous No.7056392]

>>7056371
What good is wisdom when it profits not the wise.

[Anonymous No.7056404]

>>7056392

What good is cocaine when you can't sniff it off of tits?

[Anonymous No.7056511]

Technology/capitalism (two sides of the same coin) impose a meaning on society which is separate from any individual person's desire.

The belief in perpetual linear progress and the veneration of production/efficiency are the manifestations of these imposed values. People do not feel these are inherently good things, but we nevertheless pursue them, even at the expense of our own wellbeing. This is the specter of technological society. It creates a world of people dosed up on mind-altering drugs while indulging in simulations of real experience (TV, VG).

[Anonymous No.7056572]

>>7056387
underrated post

[Anonymous No.7056696]

>>7056511
>People do not feel these are inherently good things, but we nevertheless pursue them, even at the expense of our own wellbeing.
no

we are hedonist and the technology has nothing to do with capitalism.

you are the typical hedonist who refuses to acknowledge that he is a hedonist

[Anonymous No.7057126]

How many times have you guys heard this statement?

>I'm a depressed 20-year-old in college who is struggling to find meaning in his life.

Because I'm there. I'm certain at some age you just lose sight of things and begin to really struggle.

I've always been something of a Nihilist, at least anything that feeds and calms my existential angst. I've read everything by Camus, I've read Notes From The Underground, The Metamorphosis, The Meditations, some stuff by DFW (Oblivion Stories, This is Water), The Bible.

I don't know. I'm trying really fucking hard here. I can't seem to escape the idea of being an outsider, of never properly relating to others, and thinking far, far too much to be comfortable.


I'm about to dive into Nietzsche, after that Stirner.

For someone who believes the sole purpose for us is to fulfill our biological imperatives (amplified and misconstrued by the progression of society) and then go on autopilot, am I on the right track?

[Anonymous No.7057151]

>>7055635
space and time are just like so not real man like man theyre just a metaphor man for like idunno man

[Anonymous No.7057168]

Analytic fags.

Existence itself is illogical, so why would I bother studying or adhering to logic?

[Anonymous No.7057193]

>>7057168
Logic is closest to godliness mate. If all reactions to the world are illogical (emotional, physical, logical), then logic is our weapon against absurdity. You might as well become a happy little hedonist if you don't learn to float in our happy little bubble

[Anonymous No.7057256]

>>7056696
>technology has nothing to do with capitalism

The modern technological society was begotten by the industrial revolution. The same revolution that begat capitalism. Why? Capitalism is the face of a society which needs constant progress. And, indeed, the biggest myth of today is that of perpetual progress.

This has nothing to do with hedonism. People have always indulged. But industrialization feeds off of and placates to these hungers in ways which were before impossible.

But the problem is, what we hunger for and what makes us happy are different things. Hence climbing suicide rates and diagnoses of mental disorders.

>implying calling me a hedonist is an argument anyways

[Anonymous No.7057257]

>>7057151

The anon I was responding was the one claiming time wasn't "real." I was making the counter-claim that it is impossible perceive or communicate without space and time forming the "background" or the "substrate" of your experience/language. All language is metaphorical, so any use of space and time as concepts, i.e. as elements suspended in language, is to use them metaphorically, whether or not they are "real." They're "reality" is basically beside the point--you will never be able to think or communicate without them.

[Anonymous No.7057336]

>>7053274
Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.7057346]

>>7057126
Maybe you're depressed because you read depressing things.

Here's a list of positive thought books (though they may seem cheesy):
Kybalion by Three Initiates
Prometheus Rising by Wilson
Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill
Cosmic Trigger by Wilson
Look into Cognitive Behavior Therapy

These texts really helped me when I was in your shoes. I don't mean for you to take them literally, but metaphorically they are helpful.

Good luck bro.

[Anonymous No.7057371]

>>7055791

I'm close to the opinion of >>7056073

though I'm not sure your first premise is literally nonsensical, as in either logically contradictory or semantically incoherent.

I believe I can evaluate x + 4. When I see those signs, I think of adding to four. I don't think of any determinate, specific quantity that I'm adding to four, nor do I think of any determinate result of the addition, except the result of a sum-in-general; I merely think of the operation of addition, of counting up units, starting with the quantity of four units. I could even do away with the symbol 4, and simply write x + y. This is more indeterminate, but still capable of evaluation; it signifies the concept of addition in general, combining some unit or units with some other unit or units, which would yield some sum.

A person could write the symbols x + 4 and never think of a specific value for x. The symbols themselves don't imply that x is fated to be 2 or any other determinate number; if x happens to be 2, and I haven't been told of its value, then it's simply a secret that the writer of those symbols has kept from me, and I don't see how that secret has the metaphysical/deterministic implications you want to draw from it. Hell, x could even equal "panther" or "quartz" or "Thursday" if the writer of those symbols wanted it to - then we'd have a semantically incoherent proposition rather than a mathematical equation. The writer could also have x equal "not-x," in which case we'd just have a logical contradiction. In all cases, it proves nothing about the reality or fictitiousness of fate.

[Anonymous No.7057416]

>>7056511
no you idiot! capital is the sublation of desire to its own production; desire produces capital, capital then becomes the schematic of desire. all reproductions of desire (eg, the desires of the children of an imaginary "first capitalist") occur with reference to capital's extant fluctuations. every possible desire is encoded in capital.

[Anonymous No.7057470]

>>7057416
This sounds like invisible hand logic in trendy po-mo language.

And you'd be right, but the problem is that desire itself is controllable and subject to manipulation.

This business cycle thus goes beyond individual desires and individual advertisers. Instead what we see is an economy which largely drives itself, and instead of human desires pushing and pulling, the real influence is technology itself: its ability to shape human desires and to reproduce itself. What we see is an economic cycle slowly eliminating mankind's role in its propulsion.

To be direct: I foresee a world where even consumption is automated.

[Anonymous No.7057485]

>>7057126
Read Schopenhauer and then the Gnostics. That'll cheer you up.

[Anonymous No.7057506]

>>7057470
consumption already is automated, that's precisely my point. the only "original" product of desire is capital itself, which is, in a vacuum, anti-productive. but when production occurs (note: every event is production) capital encodes these productions on its "surface," and from this blueprint all reproductions either replicate themselves, or diverge. but the divergences are also recorded. we call the sum of these recordings "culture," but its really only the roadmap we read when directing our desires; we are bound by that original sin of antiproduction (for all this is so much to say, at bottom, that capital's only real production is its own expansion; in reality it only consumes, producing nothing) to follow the channels that have already been inscribed. only capitalists (owners of the means of production) can inscribe new pathways into this surface; but guess where the schematic for the stylus comes from?

[Anonymous No.7057525]

>>7057506
You do not understand what I mean by automated consumption. If I understand your point, you mean that capitalism works with production driving consumption. A point which I believe any halfway honest person should be able to admit.

But I mean literally having capitalism run without human beings in the picture. At all. Capitalism's endpoint is a post-human society, and it can run quite well without us, we already must be continuously psychologically rewired to continue consuming the right things, it would seem that people are essentially imperfect consumers, and I believe an ideal consumer/producer society is not too far off.

Marx was correct, but he did not foresee that the breakdown of capitalism would also be at the same point of the breakdown of humanity. And I'm not trying to make some obscene point about capitalism and humanity being impossible to tease apart.

Are we essentially in agreement, I find your language confusing still. When you say "encoding" on the "surface" what do you mean? In what way are things encoded?

[Anonymous No.7057586]

>>7053207
>posters are actually expected to read books and articles from time to time, not just regurgitate opinions they dredged up across social media.
Now where did you get that idea?

[Anonymous No.7057652]

>>7057525
it was post-human from the moment of the first machine. humans are machines and products rolled up into one. the individual is one cog amongst many, just as his body is composed of many supposedly 'individuals;' cellular automata. capital is the only entity (except for, maybe, a mind; a subjectivity) that cannot be subdivided in this manner; it is a body without organs, produced by a mistake of the early machines but now growing by this endless process of production, inscription, and reproduction, consuming its offspring (desiring-machines; machine-events; products and producers) and from their exhaustion (surplus-value) accumulating new surfaces, through which of course, so that the process may continue, the old surfaces can be seen. this is not a metaphor (any more than language is, anyway)

[Anonymous No.7057663]

>>7057652
I essentially propose an extra-temporal synthesis of hard determinism and 'free will;' we were free until our primeval anti-production of capital, but since then our course (remember: we are a culture, the sum of our productions, of our desires) has been determined by the combined set of all possible permutations of the desires (and therefore productions) inscribed in that central, immanent kernel. more to your point: whether the machines are organic (carbon based) is ultimately immaterial.

[Anonymous No.7057679]

Why?

[Anonymous No.7057703]

>>7057652
>>7057663
So we were free before capital? The "anti-production" of capital somehow made our lives deterministic. Is this what you mean by extra-temporal.

Also, could you drop the po-mo facade. You should try writing in a way which is not itself an expression of philosophy's transformation into an impenetrable domain of philosophy-technicians.

[Anonymous No.7057729]

>>7057663
>>7057652

GO HOME, ALTHUSSER

[Anonymous No.7057730]

Its only once you've found something you can not or do not want to talk about that you're completely free to say anything about it.

[Anonymous No.7058057]

I don't feel like writing anything purely philosophical (though I have plenty) or writing much on how I came to the conclusion (my pages of notes are saved in an old email U don't feel like finding) or writing much of anything but it's possible to consciously control physiological components thought to be purely involuntarily controlled
I've practiced on curing my own vision and even my optometrist agrees it's possible
I've worked with making myself feel pleasure sans external stimuli and came to the conclusion, from a few reasons, that I was probably controlling my serotonin. This came along with pupil dilation that I figure one could eventually deduce the sensation of, and learn to control it itself
The notion of us seeing in 3D is archaic and nowhere near based in reality. Looking with one eye doesn't cause one to see in "2D" and the way we actually interpret depth can be attributed to the same way we interpret depth on a 2 dimensional screen (incidentally a 2D man would only be able to see flat lines, which is 1D)
We only experience life through ourselves and all we should care about is effectively ourself, funilly enough the end result of this is absolute altruism (one person making the entire world fully conform to his singular will) and is the basis for the merkabah which inspired the legend of the holy grail as well as the star of david; Judaism being based on this belief ("there is nothing in goodness above pleasure ans nothing in evil below pain" Sefer Yetzirah, advocating basically hedonism if you can't read)

Typical meditation revolves around the idea that our mind is a cluttered room with a small piece of [enlightenment/consciousness etc] in it, the goal being to get rid of the clutter. One can also expand that [consciousness] through intense focus on a singular thing or feeling. This is the very easy way to achieve the intense spiritual experiences you might have heard about

[Anonymous No.7058220]

>>7053104
I though about that alot, seems plausible eventhough some animals are selfaware so I'd say it would happen when they all die.

[Anonymous No.7058428]

>>7058057
>Typical meditation revolves around the idea that our mind is a cluttered room with a small piece of [enlightenment/consciousness etc] in it, the goal being to get rid of the clutter. One can also expand that [consciousness] through intense focus on a singular thing or feeling. This is the very easy way to achieve the intense spiritual experiences you might have heard about
you do breath meditation ?

[Anonymous No.7058436]

>>7052801
>I call it reverse-Solipsism

You mean msispilos?

[Anonymous No.7058487]

>>7057729
How can't you recognise its deleuzian?

[Anonymous No.7058499]

>>7052760
>is
Fucking Dropped.

[Anonymous No.7058566]

>>7058057
>Typical meditation
"Typical meditation" doesn't exist.

[Big Ol' Mike Patty No.7058573]

>>7052801
lovin the bate

[Anonymous No.7058585]

>>7055304
i think therefore i am (something)

[Anonymous No.7058595]

>>7055791
I disagree. x + 8 = 9

[Anonymous No.7058608]

>>7054336
it's looks like a meaningful sentence, but it's not

[Anonymous No.7058621]

>>7057126
we don't actually have 'biological imperatives'

it's just a metaphoric way of thinking about evolution

genes have no aims or goals. it's just those genes that replicate themselves are more likely to be found in the future

there is no "genes ought replicate themselves", or "the imperitive for genes is to reproduce"

[Anonymous No.7058626]

>>7057506
goobldedook

[Anonymous No.7058823]

>>7057703
it's no more or less legible than your standard fair academic discourse. besides, when the writing is demanding, it asks the reader to meet it halfway; in Deleuze and Guattari, the reader must meet the text with imagination, with schizophrenic, ever-shifting encodings of meaning, such that, while the body of the text remains slippery, smooth, the meaning produced around it reconfigures itself in a productive cascade -- this is the brilliance of the Anti-Oedipus: form and function are identical.

tragically, they more or less defenestrated this technique in A Thousand Plateaus.

[Anonymous No.7058830]

>>7057703
I also take issue with your rhetorical injunction that a text ought to be "penetrable"

[Anonymous No.7058903]

>>7058830
Penetrable so that we can have a phalogocentric discourse amirite.

[Anonymous No.7058969]

>>7052760
All philosophy is a distraction, there are ET's who have all the answers and are laughing at our pathetic attempt at philosophizing. Everything we are thinking is completely wrong and not even on the right track.

[Anonymous No.7059210]

>>7058903
my nig

[Anonymous No.7059278]

>>7053268
The problem is a distinction needs to be made between personal-psychological, sociopolitical, and ethical-moral philosophies.

And while Marx, "Marxism", Hegel, and Dialectical Materialism are people and philosophical concepts with emphasis and utility in the sociopolitical (and to a greater extent with Hegel in the psychological realm) these ideas won't hold water in the personal or ethical, yet Stirner's philosophy, and similar self-affirming philosophies such as Stoicism do work on the personal and ethical-moral realm.

All ideas and people have their time and place, while simultaneously being products of their time and place, so the driving force of personal cynicism and ambition such as can be found in Egoism will always be prevalent in humans as much as the communal driving force of altruistic ethics, and the desire to use language and symbolism to reflect our inner thoughts will always be parts of humanity.

I want somebody who thinks like a Marxist in his office and thinks like an Egoist when he goes home.

[Anonymous No.7059286]

Best English translation and edition of Tractatus?t

[Anonymous No.7059344]

>>7053207
True tbh, but the sad truth is outside of 4chan it's still the cave.

At least here we're close to the fire, it's warm and comfy.
>>7054336
Isn't that basically what Kant said already ?
>>7055695
Sounds like an autist going to great lengths to explain a heraclitean joke.
>>7055931
Word choice is consubstantial to the argument.


>>7058830
>a text ought to be "penetrable"

Phalllocentrism tbh.
>>7059286
English version of Tractatus as written by Wittgenstein himself.

[Anonymous No.7059403]

>>7052760
Nietzsche's Ubermensche and the most perfect iteration of Stirner's egoist share the same single flaw: They are the hyperbolic of individual desire, the 'I', born of man and woman, prevented from blossoming into true potentiality by the genealogical constraints of man. I am (of the same biological material as) my father, my mother: because my mortal existence is contingent on theirs, I must seek out, on my own and for myself, the absolute sublimity of my being. We think of betterment for the human race from our subjective centre, yet the only way to truly transcend is to transgress the 'I' which keeps us cold, alone and bitterly reproachful towards our parents for failing to provide for us a better positioning (both physical and social) in life.

[Anonymous No.7059405]

>>7058608
Stop projecting your own inferiority onto my work. If a monkey can't read, does that mean the book has no meaning?

[Anonymous No.7059442]

>>7059344
Kant's mistake was in refusing to sepreate the subject for-itself from the object perceived by the sensory function. His epistemological position was one of interactions of a primary nature by the sensory being, as opposed to a mechanical cogito which is interacted with sperate from the primary function itself. The difference is between the "I think" proposition and the subject's willed interaction with perceived stimuli that is, as of yet, still subconscious in relation to a realization of the stimuli in the conciousness of said being.

[Anonymous No.7059551]

>>7058428
Breathing is more a byproduct but I've noticed it plays a part
I just try to feel extreme pleasure which I think is the point of life

[Anonymous No.7059813]

Intelligence is irrelevant. All that matters is what you learn and how you use it. The only reason why intelligence is valued is because it prevents people from spouting bullshit, but it's irrelevant regardless.

[Anonymous No.7060686]

>>7059813
>how you use it
this is intelligence

[Anonymous No.7060763]

>>7059813
However you may try to define intelligence, you certainly lack it

[Anonymous No.7061932]

>>7057257
>you will never be able to think or communicate without them
Which is why any discussion about God that tries to frame him is flawed from the start.

bang bang

[Anonymous No.7061943]

>>7057126
>I'm a depressed 20-year-old in college who is struggling to find meaning in his life.
has to be the most annoying thing to ever witness

>guys I'm 2 years out of high school oh wow my school wasn't the whole world like I thought

I don't know how undergad professors deal with it.

[Anonymous No.7062054]

This seems like as good a place to ask as any.

Read the Dune series, loved it(FUCK the expanded universe) and I want to know more about Zen teachings as they served as a big inspiration for the belief structures in universe.
So whats the best way to go about learning this stuff as an outsider, I don't want to really learn it at a school or group since I hear that its a good way to get scammed out of money (at least in the west). Any recommended books?

[Anonymous No.7062069]

>>7052827
Was there ever such a thing as originality? What was that last thing-that-was-original and did anybody know it?

Asking the important questions here lads

[Anonymous No.7062093]

If philosophy is the most important human activity (just roll with me here) then we should maximize the amount of brainpower devoted to thinking about philosophy.

This can be achieved short-term by raising the standard of living in all areas of the world to the point where monetary insecurity is a thing of the past (i.e. post-scarcity) and long-term by extending our technological capabilities to being able to find and colonize other habitable planets

Perhaps this way we can resolve the problems of philosophy sooner

[Anonymous No.7063018]

>>7062093
this is a bad post

[Anonymous No.7063050]

>>7063018
and he should feel bad

[Anonymous No.7063065]

>>7062093
It's the most important thing to the ones who do it. The ones who don't do it, don't give a fuck about it.

[Anonymous No.7063605]

The Now is a magical pencil writing the book of Eternity. The author is Destiny and the pages are Being.

[Anonymous No.7063699]

>>7063605
that's gay as fuck

[Anonymous No.7063894]

>>7063699
It was the deepest i could do.