[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/wiz/ - Wizardry

Disregard Females, Acquire Magic
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1674824970563.jpg (61.15 KB, 602x877, 602:877, main-qimg-9a4e33ee4725771d….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.201732[Last 50 Posts]

What are the wizards view about determinism and free will? Do you believe in fate? As it meant to be or do we have a saying in the way our lifes unfold?


Free will as I understand it would be to be able to do things completely separate from the natural instincts and necessities that take up so much space in our lives, basically most of the stuff we do have a relation with how our mammal brain functions and it takes up the grand majority of things we do on a daily basis.
Maybe I am misunderstanding things, but, if free will was something that existed then we would be able to just sit down and do absolutely nothing, something that is completely impossible given the very basic necessities that exist in the minds of everyone.
I think that stuff like free will comes from an idea that is far too rational to exist in the real world, it's a result of a mind that is mostly rational, trying to make sense of things people do, and while it is not incorrect, what most people fail to realize is that separating things from eachother, rationalizing things apart from eachother, is actually the wrong way of seeing things.
I think that the way life is, could be made sense of in a different way rather than trying to separate something like free will and not, it's the combination of both that life is made up of, something far more complex than we are able to decipher as of right now.
Something like free will is an idea that could only exist in the minds of something that is incredibly rational and displays no signs of human necessities, something similar to an inanimate object with none of the things that define a person, things that can be said to be emotions and very primal instincts that end up driving the individual, even if it is in a subtle way, it still takes place.
For something like free will to be completely understood, you would first need to understand a person in its entirety, and that lies in the distant future.


>if free will was something that existed then we would be able to just sit down and do absolutely nothing, something that is completely impossible
Why would this be impossible? Monastic traditions are a counter example that prove this wrong, unless I am misunderstanding the scope of sitting doing nothing.

I like the Buddhist interpretation, that having free will doesn't mean that we don't have conditioned responses, our free will in part comes with/from the insight that we can condition ourselves new responses with practice, wisdom, and morality trainings.

Further, even without monasteries as an example, if one can sit and do nothing for a few minutes, from zero, why wouldn't it follow that we can naturally progress and spend more time sitting doing nothing.

I think it will require a new or at least non scientific method to discern if free will is real or imagined, because every individual lacks a control case to test against. Also, it's a kind of thing that requires it's belief to exist, if you believe you don't have freedom, you inherently act more like a slave than if you don't. I think a gradient of awareness of self, behavior, is a better conceptual framework than free wills non/existence, and so we can be come increasingly liberated from ourselves, especially our basest instincts and responses, and further even use our instincts as part of our project to recondition ourselves, so our liberated awareness becomes increasingly reflexive.

All this to say, have you tried loving kindness meditation?


My views is that determinism is more often than not just used as a excuse to avoid personal responsibility.
It also is a non-falsifiable argument that denies observable reality. Lastly it is a non-functional philosophy.

Meanwhile arguments about free will go no where because it ether isn't defined or defined badly, especially in the context of philosophy. It also isn't on it's own a philosophy, but moreso a major assumption and first principle of nearly all other philosophies besides determinism and it's offshoots.
Regardless "free will" as it's colloquiality understood corresponds with observable reality. It's directly functional and a reasonable assumption to make given universal direct lived experience of all sapien humans.


I was typing a follow-up to my post talking exactly about religions and the entire idea of neglecting the self and such, stuff that buddhism teaches, but even christianity as well.
It actually helps the person to try and set himself apart from his nature, be it good or bad, it is considered to be a weakness to display human necessities and desires, it coincides with an idea that can be said to be free will because in order to achieve free will you first need to disregard those impulses that exist within every person. Primal necessities aside, we'd be closer to defining a form of ideal human which many of these religions and practicioners of them want to achieve.
I don't know a lot about buddhism, but I know for a fact that christianity preaches a form of guilt that should be fought against, all of that idea of fall from grace and being sinners, neglect your own self and accept god, a higher power which deems humans as sinners that need to repent in order to become close to god. Christianity preaches those things, I am not sure if it is intentional or not, but it could be said that their way of thinking which attempts to raise humans from mere animals into people, and emphasizes the difference between the two, is unintentionally gravitating more towards something that sounds like free will to me.
But I don't really know, for these things to actually make sense, we would need to know exactly what a human is, how a human brain works, what makes people people and other such ideas. We're fuelled by these things, even if it may be in a way that is subtle, a person can definitely feel as if he is in complete control over these urges that take up entire people's lives, but the question remains whether said person really is in control or if it's merely something he believes through having devoted his life towards something he considers to be the ultimate truth, which is something very difficult to say.
>our free will in part comes with/from the insight that we can condition ourselves new responses with practice, wisdom, and morality trainings.
It's not impossible, I'd say. But it's like elastic, you can try your best to ignore these things, but there's only a set amount you can stretch before it turns back to normal. It would take mental strain and effort to retain this lifestyle beyond a certain amount of time, by which time there will be a question of whether it is worth it to do so or not.


If you ask someone who does not believe in free will: "What do you believe exists instead of free will?" They will describe free will.


File: 1674868604277.png (402.51 KB, 520x677, 520:677, wizzard.png) ImgOps iqdb

there are awfully many loud idiots vehemently denying free will but to me it always only sounds like they are affirming it to themselves. they loudly announce it, hoping it will strengthen the lie and keep the light from shining through the cracks.

the level of denial i have witnessed around this is alarming. some people deny free will as if they get grounded by their parents if they don't deny it obviously and strongly enough.


File: 1674869288857.png (454.98 KB, 478x589, 478:589, wizzard with chicken.png) ImgOps iqdb

I've always heard the tired train of thought that everything can be expressed in probability and therefor it is already set in stone. It can be predicted and therfore it isn't a choice; to me this is missing the point.

Some people re-choose at every moment what to do and other people just follow plans that they or in most cases some other force wrote. Free will includes the ability to make decision about oneself, which already disqualifies a large percentage of people, who agreed to choose against it in their identity.

For example some people don't choose to do things, they wouldn't know how. They do whatever is normal. That is not free will, that's the will of "normal".

Denying free will is inherently subservient to higher power and in denial of the power of self. A zealot, a follower. The bigger and more complex a group that a person belongs to is in some voluntary or involuntary fashion, the more i would expect the person to not believe in free will.


File: 1674869616837.jpg (30.08 KB, 520x677, 520:677, 1674868604277.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Hmm, Free Will as a magical force. Those who disagree are children. In your wiz-soyjack your undoing hides, Sam Harris. He has not only dominated you, the blockchain predetermined him to do so.


I think there isn't a proper distinction between what free will and determinism means. I think there should be a distinction between free will, predictability, and determinism. There exists mathematical systems that are deterministic, but not predictable (have no defineable statistical moments). There are people who assert that free will is something more than 'theoretically predictable with enough information.'


so what? youre going to let yourself be enslaved just because you dont believe in magic?


File: 1674911318501.mp4 (2.48 MB, 1280x720, 16:9, jimmy dore show follow the….mp4) ImgOps iqdb

>Sam Harris

Sam Harris is an actor pretending to be an intellectual. How come you bitch respect him enough to mention him?

long video about what a fool he has proven himself to be:

shorter video attached


>Do you believe in fate?
Do you believe in fate?
Do you feel far away from the truth?
Do you accept what you see?
Do you control your life?

Welcome to my surreal world
Come in and waste your time
A prison for your mind


Determinism vs freewill gay and boring.

Next question.

Why is there (alot of) nothing rather than something?


Define "nothing".


shallow, empty


Are you talking about space?
Not really the domain of philosophy anymore. That is more of a astrophysics question.


So if you get a doctorate in astrophysics, it's something other than a PhD? We can't even explain our limited direct sensory perceptions of the universe, let alone speculate about what the universe actually might be. It's philosphy.


You really need to better define your terms because as written you make no sense.


Dumping this here. Serious philosophers get barely any views.


A PhD is a doctorate in philosophy. It's what you get even in a STEM field like astrophicis. Western logic and science derives from western philosophy. It's not at all strictly about debating the human condition. That's all I mean.

Where I went to school, there's a monument to Alan Turing on the H&SS side of campus. He's kind of the father of the modern computer, but his thesis about the Turing Test to determine whether or not a computer is sentient is deeply philosophical.


>is deeply philosophical.
The turing test is just whether a computer can pass as a human in conversation. Turing was a genius but the turing test is a pretty mild contribution of his.


File: 1675109657558.jpg (5.82 KB, 205x214, 205:214, martin.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Define "nothing".


That's the long and short of it, but the thesis is much more involved than that, and far transcends the idea of a logical reduction of modern computers to being a turing-complete machine.

That's not really the point, though. It's just an example, much like how theorizing about how the universe works is basically an exercise in philosphy given that we can't create a cosmos to conduct nice neat little controlled experimetns on.


Still you couldn't define "nothing".


File: 1675129940316.jpg (46.24 KB, 1024x576, 16:9, oct18_22_567145277-1024x57….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I tried reading Plato's "The Republic" a couple times but couldn't make sense of the weird grammatical structures. At the end of every sentence, my brain said INVALID SYNTAX. I don't know if the translation is at fault or if my reading comprehension is kindergarten level, or both.

But, now I'm having fun reading The Problem Of Pain by C.S Lewis, and I want to read some more, especially his book on probability.


File: 1675130558038.jpg (51.98 KB, 614x680, 307:340, Fj_nOltXEAEbHED.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

When the philosophical argument devolves in to questioning of semantics and meanings of individual words, the argument is automatically ended on the grounds that neither party are speaking the same language.


You are just being lazy and using ambiguity to cover for a shallow understanding of the topic.

If you read much philosophy they go through great lengths to explain what exactly they mean when using words so that they are understood.

You don't want to be understood. You are trying to use mystery as a substitute for depth and failing at it.


No, you're looking to scapegoat peoples' disagreement with you as them being uninformed - not on the same page. As if its their responsibility to define every word they use when the words in question as as innocuous as fucking "nothing". You're deflecting your responsibility to interpret their words in the way that is expected from a grown man and trying to instill in them the idea that they are not being clear even when using plain English. This is 100% a you problem.

Define philosophy. Define understood. Define ambiguity. I am very smart.


Now you just sound dumb.

In context what you said earlier makes no sense. When asked to explain what you meant you gave up and now are flipping out.
That is because you don't want to be understood or are unable to articulate your poorly constructed ideas.

Also I could easily defined word if they were the source of misunderstanding but you're asking for definitions is 100% insincere, not because you actually want clarification.
You are just being abrasive and difficult because you're butthurt, mostly because you don't have anything relevant to say.

>Dude, why is there like nothing instead of like something man

>I am so deep and mysterious
So dumb.


>you're looking to scapegoat peoples' disagreement
Disagreement with what?
No one can even understand what point you are trying to make.
No one said, "I disagree" they said "wtf are you talking about" more or less.
That is because you aren't communicating clearly and no it isn't on anyone else to play guessing games to put your gibberish into something that makes sense.


You are an example of it.


>asks vague question that can be seen in different ways
>asked to elaborate
Can you move this along and expound on what you meant in your initial question so we can actually achieve a level of understanding, which is the fucking POINT of this thread?


>you are an example of it

Of what?


Folks! How about we get back to some srs bsns. Now, if we take a surface read of the word "nothing," then it would seem to indicate "no thing," or "the absence of anything." That is to say, for all X where X is a thing, it is not X.

So, one way to narrow down on this is to ask if "nothing" is the same as a word such as "null," or "emptiness." I would say no, because "null" or "emptiness" designate a specific state of affairs; a confirmation that the variable in question is undefined. A state of being undefined is quantifiably unique, and therefore a "thing." Therefore, assigning a variable a state of being known to be undefined cannot be "nothing."

Agree? Disagree?


anybody else find God after reading philosophy?

i read kant and hegel and now I am convinced God exists. though I don't belong to any organized religion


File: 1675227961932.jpg (66.23 KB, 800x450, 16:9, IKUdmBagDEvvjSU-800x450-no….jpg) ImgOps iqdb


I found that god and religion weren't really necessary to live a good fulfilled life or be a good moral person after reading philosophy.
At 12 or so this was a big revelation to me. That religion and morality could be separated.


Not really. And I'd even continue thinking that Jesus (or at least what's written about him) was at the very least a brilliant philosopher etiher way. Faith is a categorically more irrational thing imo.

But perhaps if you're building a system of logic, then aren't the foundational axioms also just taken on faith as being some sort of set of universal and indelible truths?


> That religion and morality could be separated.
It tended to be like that in pagan cultures. I think worshipping things that had no ideals, and espousing ideals without objective foundation made the monotheistic Christianity, Islam, and Zoroastrianism more appealing to people, which reconciled these two seemingly unaffiliated concepts.



File: 1675290972545.webm (169.14 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, Stop it Get some help.webm) ImgOps iqdb




how is playing dumb in this many words possibly worth your time…

seek help


> But perhaps if you're building a system of logic, then aren't the foundational axioms also just taken on faith as being some sort of set of universal and indelible truths?
This got me thinking about what the most universal and indelible truth is and I think I got an answer. All of what we know and think rests upon our experience and perception. Our perception is dependent on fallible instruments, but how can we be sure that even our experience, and by extension, that we are real? Well, if one didn't exist, one wouldn't be able to perceive himself.
If you consider everything you experience to be real, in one way or another, you do so with only the certainty that you exist, and that if the one thing you know exists (your self) acknowledges other things, then those other things exist, either outside the self, or as a quality of the self.


If this thread is still wanking about pissant teenage takes on the question of free will, it is not quality. It is retarded. Read a fucking book and actually understand the Christian position on free will, and the position of the other major religions, and then read actual philosophy instead of retarded German faggots and their shameless Anglo followers.

I didn't see it as too unusual in the English translation I read, but it is a translation intended for modern audiences. The greatest barrier to understanding is that very modern English is bizarre in syntax and how people are forced to comport themselves, and this is a new thing that they started teaching around 1960 to engineer how Americans spoke English. It is more understandable if you are familiar with older English-language writing and read the originals of things written in the 19th century or early 20th.
With ancient pagans it can be difficult because their cosmology did not believe in "total society" that would eventually be taken for granted, and it never really could grapple with Christian/Jewish cosmology and its theory of history. The idea that Christianity would eventually lead to bureaucratic states invading private life was way far out there for the time. We don't have a concept of a world today that is "outside of society" in any serious way, because the invasion of private life has been so total and demands things of us that no generation prior ever asked.


layman here, i was never into philosophy but recently i had a thought which may or may not be worthwhile, i would like to know if any big names have expressed this idea too:
we can only prove the existence of what we know exists and attempt to prove the inexistence of what we know exists, which will lead to falsehood as we know it exists.
it is impossible to prove the exitence or inexistence of what we do not know exists.


If a caveman has only ever seen black birds, is it possible for him to prove white birds exist? He doesn't know they exist.
Can I attempt to prove the 'inexistence' of a 3rd moon orbiting the Earth?


>it is impossible to prove the exitence or inexistence of what we do not know exists.
Either Schrodinger's Cat in the box, or just another semantic argument because "exist" implies "known" and the "known" cannot simultaneously be "unknown" which doesn't make sense because the "known" in "unknown" implies that it blah blah balaahhaa

>it is impossible to prove the exitence … of what we do not know exists.

Scientists THOUGHT there might exist really small things
So they made a microscope to EXPLORE THE IDEA of small things existing
Then they discovered small things DO EXIST

Therefor, they proved the existince of something they didn't know existed


>If a caveman has only ever seen black birds, is it possible for him to prove white birds exist? He doesn't know they exist.
thats the thing isnt it? he doesn't know it exists until he sees one, he can only choose to belive based on knowing there are black birds, so there "might be" white birds.
but i think you're right as far as method goes but up to a point: we know moons exist, and detect them by visual method, so we can tell if there is another moon by attempting to observe it, but we alread know the method and the subject by that point.
applies somewhat to >>202044 as well, i think.
i might be getting somewhere, maybe.


Fate exists, we are basically all just wind up toys. It changes nothing.


You've described positivism, basically. It's a logical fallacy because "what we know exists" can be interpreted as meaning we know nothing at all except that there is a universe. To say anything meaningful about the universe requires making assumptions of the knowability of aspects of the universe, the reliability of sense information, questions about the nature of consciousness and subjectivity/objectivity, and a lot of minefields which are politicized. It gets really ugly when you look at the history.

A lot of the shit takes of teenagers are either really dumb takes on positivist pseudoscientific views, or really dumb takes on a basically Satanic view of the world that has been pushed a lot in the past 50 years. A big problem with positivism is that it leads to scientism, and this gets even worse because not every culture and language has the same concept of "science". That leads to a lot of confusion between English and German scientific traditions, because German words for "science" do not translate exactly to the English concept. Specifically, the German concept of Wissenschaft upholds institutional science as the path to truth, more than any individual genius or connection. This makes sense because the Germans do not believe in the democratic idea at all, and abhor the idea of science being democratized. You see this both in the rightist German tradition and in the leftist versions like Marxism, although Marx is both smart enough to know the trap, and smart enough to build a dual system - one for the people who get it and actually know something about the world, and another for the rubes who are just cajoled and told "shut up and follow the Party". Marx and the smarter of the Marxists at least understood this narrow thinking on science had problems, but someone forgot to tell that to the useful idiots who say the stupidest shit and call it the immortal science. Marx himself is giving enough hints that you're not supposed to have this narrow view of science, since he's very familiar with classical philosophy and is writing more to the English and French traditions he was borrowing his subject matter from / co-opting for his project.

So basically the biggest name for positivism was Auguste Comte, who started out working as a socialist but turned hard to the right. He's writing in the early 19th century, at a time where "socialist" was a novel idea and identified more with the right or center than the liberals, so this turn to the right isn't as weird as you might think. The early socialists had a lot of weirdos into kooky shit and a lot of people who were basically normal bankers who said "hey, maybe we should actually make productive investments".

I'll also add that the last point you make
>it is impossible to prove the exitence or inexistence of what we do not know exists.
is basically the default position of every philosophy. Faith in God in religion is not premised on assumption, but on a conviction that God, in some form, is very real and relevant to your understanding of the world. This is obviously intended as a metaphor, rather than a belief that there is actually a bearded man in the sky throwing thunderbolts. God is most evidently a metaphor for political and social thought in earlier societies, and it is done in a lot of different ways based on the religion in question. There wasn't a language to replace that spiritual authority with something else like science or nature, with the latter explanations themselves typically devolving into religious or pseudo-religious explanations of the world. It should be noted that science as we practice it today is still an extension of religious thought. It's why science is done in the universities which were designed to train the priesthood and the elite of society, with natural and applied sciences being an afterthought. It's also why our treatments of science are so godawful and don't resemble the thing anyone with actual sense would use to describe the world.


Quantum mechanics pretty conclusively shows us the universe is not deterministic.


There’s deterministic views of quantum mechanics so conclusively is the wrong word there.


How do we know spins are ND? Humans don't know everything yet.


Specifically, q-states and decay may be deterministically governed by forces we aren't yet aware of or mayhaps never be able to test. That being said, I don't believe the universe is deterministic and I do believe in free will. I just don't think science is going to assist humans with discovering that.


File: 1675546383431.pdf (2.3 MB, making-sense-of-quantum-me….pdf)

Theories do not assert "this is what the universe is at a fundamental level". That's retard speak and a pseudoscience presented by assholes who want to mystify what is really said by QM.

The purpose of QM is to formalize many things that were known to mathematical physics leading up to it, so that further investigations into physics at the small scale can be undertaken in a more rigorous approach. There was a realization around the start of the 20th century that scientific paradigms had to be reinvented to break a failure of the old understanding to answer certain questions. There are genuine advances, but at the same time, a lot of pseudoscientists and bullshitters got hold of the presses to spew a bunch of nonsense, because science was to be occulted in the 20th century and denied to the people. People are not going to be allowed to know in full detail how the scientists and intellectuals will fuck them.

Philosophically, if you're saying the universe is deterministic, you're inserting a creature that determines, a "natural selector". Basically, it's implying the existence of a god, or a god of nature. It's either a recapitulation of Christian theology, or it's some variant of Satanic thinking which seeks to command people. Either way, it's nonsense, and the Christian view on this is already known. They can defend themselves just fine. It's these Satanic retards who lie profusely about everything, and none of it is about science in a genuine sense.

We build models in science on the presumption that the natural world can be predicted. We build the models to resemble something that we hold to follow certain principles. By saying "the universe is not fundamentally deterministic" you are really making a claim that science in any form is impossible, and anything can be anything. This is another retardation and flagrant error. The difficulty with science is not that our thoughts have anything to do with the real universe, but science is always a practice undertaken by people, and people possess limited faculties. We are perfectly aware of those limitations and seek to overcome them. The only people who try to impose human limitations as the true extent of understanding are Satanics who want to arrest and retard human thought. The positivists are accused of this, but what positivism actually says about knowledge is very important - that we have no immediate basis for metaphysics, which up to that point had been assumed in philosophy as the precursor to any scientific thinking. What is really being said by positivism is an inquiry into what it means for humans to think, and this opens the possibility of social engineering and the modern sciences of sociology, psychology, and a more rigorous scientific approach to history. Meshing science and history can be a dangerous fallacy, because history is ultimately politicized and our primary sources are other people writing about their time, or other people writing about a past that is closer to them. We have pretty elaborate models of what the Roman imperial system actually was, and they are refined today, but any competent classicist can admit we really don't know as much as we would like. Most of the writing from Antiquity was lost, and only a small class of people wrote and found their work reproduced often. The Romans weren't into literary culture the way we are, even among the elite, so a lot of what is written comes down from Greek, Syrian, Jewish, and early Christian writers. Romans tended to follow the examples of cultures that did get into literature, repurpose them for Roman ends, and attempt to make sense of it. The Romans didn't have much of an independent intellectual tradition that was uniquely Roman, because the concerns of the Romans were more practical. They cared about having a strong military that could defeat any other opponent and was always up to date on tactics, and they were skilled administrators, but they disdained philosophy and what we would call science. Like I said before, "science" in the English sense doesn't always translate cleanly in the nuances, because the English/British idea of science included a lot of quasi-magical references and some Harry Potter business. This got exported over to America, which was attempting to figure out its own tradition until a bunch of English and German assholes decided to make us join their stupid running battle, and we wound up getting the worst of both worlds.

The real issue with quantum physics is to highlight the things physics did not know and could not yet say anything about, rather than build the standard model and zaniness that has been promoted in Academia today. Most of that is a pseudo-science sold to rubes to make physics seem magical. Actual scientists fucking hate that Kaku guy.

Again, saying "the universe is deterministic" is insinuating the idea that the universe has a will, which it clearly does not in any sense we would appreciate. You're just recapitulating a Satanic conceit about will that is common to Eugenics, rather than anything spiritually meaningful. This shit pollutes the internet and makes discourse impossible.


By the way, I just found the quote I was looking for:
>MENO: And how will you enquire, Socrates, into that which you do not know? What will you put forth as the subject of enquiry? And if you find what you want, how will you ever know that this is the thing which you did not know?
>SOCRATES: I know, Meno, what you mean; but just see what a tiresome dispute you are introducing. You argue that a man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the very subject about which he is to enquire.
Ideas very similar to yours were discussed by the Greeks quite a lot.


This is what I like about seemingly lazy concepts like "dark matter." Nobody is saying that there is necessarily some kind of dark matter that we as yet can't detect. It's just a way of talking about a hole in the predominant theories and their ability to adequately explain the available data.

So what is the dark matter? It doesn't have to be dark and it doesn't have to be matter. But at least now it has a name we can use to enquire about further.


They admit behind closed doors that they don't really know what they think they know, and also that nothing they say to the public will ever be honest. Whatever the new cosmology will be, it will be decided and spread in secret. They're done with the idea of popularizing science at all, and the rest of us will live in stasis where nothing ever changes, or the world seems to regress to some primordial condition. That's the way the Satan has intended for us.

In real terms - physics is built on rickety foundations and was shittified because they didn't want people figuring out how to build nukes or anything else that would challenge the status quo, and they definitely don't want people having their own ideas about how we could break the energy monopoly. That knowledge will always be in the hand of the oligarchy, and the rest of us are forced to recite stupidities and lies, so we are marked as "retarded", while an elite is pulled aside and told the real state of knowledge. This whole way we have been taught science is essentially Satanic and designed to mislead and cajole.

All of this is just to show much of a farce knowledge is. The truth is in the world for all to see, but we only ever know anything by some form of communication, even within ourselves. Absent a theory of what humans even are constitutionally, in a time where people thought about themselves as souls and the body as merely a vessel, you're going to get wonky results. It says more about the failure of idealism and religion than it says about a human's ability to know. This leads of course to a whole game played with knowledge, where no one ever really "knows" because they are made to doubt themselves and their most basic connection to the world. It's a mental trick because knowledge is only ever local and subjective. The truth remains in the world, but the only things people know are through subjective experience of that world. Normally, you ask yourself what you, the subject, are doing wrong so you don't do the same mistake, but that is problematic when the whole way we are ruled relies on forced ignorance and habitual lying. If we abandoned that - and that is something humans always do in order to constitute themselves in the first place - then the society we live in would be very different, and we probably would not tolerate the level of horseshit we are forced to accept. Philosophy tasks itself with serving the state and those who hold it by creating lies and more lies, and it is on us the poor plebs to see that for what it is, and manage to hold something for ourselves, for whatever that is worth.


Posts like these are why I don’t sincerely post anymore.


Good post!!


Free will and determinism exist as a duality. their difference is imaginary and it is an illusion. 100% free will looks the same as 100% determinism


They are mutually exclusive by definition.


Awareness is the bridging gap, we are both free and determined and we can lean into either more


"Free will" was never a naturalistic proposition that would be proven with "the science". This was answered a long time ago by basically every religion and philosophy made it explicit - free will concerned the ideal world and political, rather than the material which is in the purview of science. If the material world operates in a particular way, then by most religious thinking, it's just the way God or Heaven works. If we imagine humans absent any god, purely as material creatures, then unless there is another material creature to tell us otherwise, we're as free to act within the means available to us as we ever were. The way we resolve decision-making as thinking organisms is that we have this thing called a "will", and we have a mind which is able to interface with the world. There wouldn't be any other way for a thinking organism to navigate the world, absent any compelling outside force that would interject in the middle of our native thought process. The motion of matter in our bodies is a thing at least partially under our control, and in any event constitutes "us".

The mind is not purely tied to a material origin of course - we have an abstract, virtual space in subjective experience, which does not directly correspond to what happens in the body. Think of it like reading the output of a computer program on a monitor. If you took apart the machine code, you can see which pixels light up when something happens, if you are a competent systems analyst. The meaning of the words or images on the screen, though, is intended to be read by a human user. Just as bites and computed instructions, the computer and program are worthless. Every computer program exists to perform a task we would do by rote before we had computers, or in some way the output of the computer would be appreciated by someone in society, in order for it to be meaningful to us. The point isn't to pontificate on the nature of subjectivity - we've settled that already. The point is that the meaning of the program is interpreted by users, rather than something that is directly indicated in the program code. Realistically, it takes a human analyst to even look at the computer code to figure out "this program will loop" or "this program crashes in x, y, z conditions". The computer doesn't actually "know" what it is doing - it is just a machine reading instructions from a tape. If the computer does "know" anything, it is because it has been programmed to analyze its own program.
Consciousness of course is not a matter of attaining a level of rational appearance. We are conscious because we feel, because the body and nerves react to real events, rather than some threshold of intelligence being attained to differentiate "consciousness" from "non-consciousness". When we sleep, we are not truly dead, which is why we dream and why we can be roused from sleep.

Again, you're just repeating a very retarded version of positivism. This was Karl Popper's stock and trade - saying stupid shit brazenly, as a prelude to the fascist way of lying about everything.

"Awareness" is a trap. We are never truly aware of all - omniscience is impossible, and we never fully know even ourselves. The extreme of "awareness" is navel-gazing and attempting to glean meaning from something that isn't terribly relevant to our experience.
But again, you are operating under the presumption that free will is a question other than what it actually is, and that if "the science" says we have no will, then we must be slaves of… something. You do understand that is a position that implies a religious spiritual authority, right? You're not rebelling against God as much as you think. This is a common Christian error. Most people in the world don't make this error, or at least not in the same way.

Basically, Christianity is a fucked system.


Determinism doesn't require a God except in a very vague way akin to A Pattern Language of complexity. Matter of fact it's the simplest option when we look at other deterministic things in the world


Tehchnological dominance on a geopolitical scale with such things as special weaponry like nukes is a matter of national security. You can say "they don't want people to know how" but that's mainly because it makes sense to guard proprietary technology from potential geopolitical opponents.

Let's take an automobile engine as an analogy. A great deal of information on how they work and how they're manufactured is out there. You could presumably build one yourself, and you could, although it would be crude and perhaps would put intractable strain on your own personal capacity. But even with all sorts of resources, how well would you be able to compete with proprietary trade secrets, avoid patent infringement, lawyer tricks and all the rest. Corporate espionage is a big thing not entirely because of some overarching lurch toward occultism but because that's simply practical. I wouldn't say that you're a satanist if you didn't care to divulge your family recipies or if you knew I wouldn't be able to recreate them without also being taught how.


>Thread about philosophy
>Idiots start shitposting about physics

That's why every thread sucks.


>Thread about philosophy
>Shitposting about physics

That's why every thread sucks.


all philosophy boils down to observation of the world, which inherently means things like science and physics will be invoked. Or do you think it's just coincidence all the most famous philosophers studied nature as well?


This is not the real shit, how can 1+1 lead to the discovery of the world nature?


I will never understand how anyone can deny determinism. And yes I fucking hate QM.


>100% free will looks the same as 100% determinism
however their believers look spectacularly different…


The reason for the obfuscation is not really national security. Two or more countries pointing nuclear weapons at each other is not security, unless there is a tacit agreement between the leaders of those countries to never use them for war. The real things keeping the peace are that wars are expensive materially and politically, and that there is really nothing to fight over. Everything from 1914 on has been a war against humanity by those who rule - the national projects are set against each other, and there are classes of people selected to win in the order that came out of each war. WW1 and WW2 were about establishing a technological interest's supremacy and stake in the global project, which they intend to control the world. That's all it was. At the time, no one who actually thought about war thought it was about ideology, and the only ones who actually fought a defensive war were the Soviets because they were the big thing that needed to be put down at the time. So far as the war had genuine factions, they were not the national projects, but global associations with competing visions for what the world would be, and groups of schemers and conspirators who hoped to play all interests against each other to rule the whole thing. The nukes were not about fighting another country, but fighting the mutual enemy of all interests - the urban proletariat, who were grouped conveniently in cities thanks to industrialization and could in theory be wiped out with a nuclear warhead. The problem with this theory is that people tend to figure out when bullshit will lead to a nuke war, and will do things like flee to the country regardless of whatever panic the rulers stoke to force people to stand and die. It doesn't help that craven Satanic retards rule America and got rid of anyone vaguely competent in this operation. So I get on the Satanic thing because it's not hard to see what motivates the people who want to rule the world today, rather than because they did some mean thing that made me upset. Among the ways they do perpetuate this system is by making everyone dumb and fearful and beating them into submission, starting from the cradle and lasting until the grave, with nonstop inundation with propaganda and lies. The nukes are a useful tool for facilitating that, which is why the intellectual classes pushed governments to build them. They could install conditions that would push the oligarchy to keep the technicians and scientists and intellectuals alive and give them favored positions, make the capitalists work with the intellectual elite as indispensible partners. If you're one of those intellectuals who are into eugenics, the past century has been a nonstop success, so long as you're on the winning side. The rich and the intellectuals hate each other, but they hate the rest of us far more.

Perhaps I'm jumping over things that don't immediately make sense unless you follow the history of these things, and that led to confusion of why I said the things I did. If the nukes were intended as a deterrent or a weapon of last resort for war with other countries, there would be an effort at civil defense and not throwing away your people. Up until around 1970, the competing states behaved as if nuclear war was a real possibility and acted accordingly. This was not desirable though, so the up and coming generation were fed fanciful tales of nuclear apocalypse and Mad Max scenarios that were intended to induce people to run around like headless chickens and believe there is no hope, there is no end. That is not something you would do if you were expecting to fight any actual war, and no one in their right mind wanted that. That is why we have the mystification around nuclear weapons that we do. The problem with a nuclear war isn't "blowing up the world" or "ending all life on Earth", but that nuclear war would mean the mask immediately drops, and the people lurking will just kill anyone who disagrees with their vision for the world. But mostly, the nukes are there as a threat to prevent cities from rebelling. If a city decides they don't want to do this any more, they have a nuke waiting for them, or a preponderance of force that is basically like a nuke. That's what they did to Saddam. Ostensibly there were no nukes thrown, but the stated goal of the Bush coalition was to flatten Iraq and turn the place into a death camp, so they can round up the locals and use them for sick MKULTRA experiments and the like. That's how they manufactured ISIS, from tortured prisoners who were brainwashed and used as a test for the new order of things in that region. They've been at work perfecting those tactics and getting brainwashed people to go kill themselves over Ukraine, so they can die for some more Nazi horseshit. Anyway, that's my recent history lesson…

When you say "nature is deterministic", you are granting to nature the status of God, basically inserting God in the natural world and saying He's the ultimate scientist. That's the gist of this argument, and it's a boilerplate argument regurgitated ad nauseum. It comes from eugenics more than anything else. In an actual scientific sense, "free will" so far as it exists is nothing more than the agency of human beings and the recognition that consciousness of people stems from a real source - i.e., in natural science, there can be no such thing as a "philosophical zombie", if you think at all about what conscious experience entails from a scientific point of view. You have to insert what are basically religious claims about mind and consciousness into a pseudo-scientific framework, and that is the game that has been played in science.
Let me put it another way - if nature simply does what it will do, then what exactly is "determining" what you do, except yourself and the events around you? There is no direct connection between you and things very far away from you. Any time you speak of "nature" determining anything, you are speaking of causes and effects that we can understand, and we can see that certain causes are closer in proximity to an event that others. So, if your thoughts which create your mind are determined, you have to ask what causes and effects affect this mind, and the processes which underlie it. What you come away with is that the chief determinant of what your body does, in all the ways that "free will" is relevant, is your own influence over your body and the world around you. Interventions to inject control into someone's body and mind are not trivial and doing this regularly is very expensive, which is why interventions are an extraordinary measure rather than a routine one. We are thinking and living constantly, but the "determination" of something distant from us can only affect us in certain ways we can predict and react to. What is really pointed to in the entire argument over free will is the role of the state and society in a vague sense in commanding people. In Christian thinking, God gives you "free will", but it is also understood that God works through everyone and everything, and has specifically granted humans will to do things. What it really means is that the priests have a special connection to control people through spiritual authority. This carried over to modern ideology and the mechanisms of control used today, which are far more invasive than religion could have been. It is for that reason that religion has been displaced or transformed, and that's why we have these infantile debates.

Philosophy is not limited to observation or science - again, this is the logical positivist influence that always seeps into these debates when they are in the shit tier. Philosophy is an origin for how you can say anything about science in the first place, and different philosophies will say different things about what science can and can't do. Really, the argument over positivism was over a bunch of autism, because certain people did not like their method of social engineering being displaced by a newer one. The rejection of metaphysics is really an arbitrary poison pill designed to curtail a necessary starting point to understand what science points to in the first place. It is true we cannot just assert boldly that metaphysics is "real", and what observation of the natural world alone tells us about metaphysics is not much at all. We can through metaphysics answer a very important problem that exists for us - how our language necessarily distorts the thing our senses detect, and how our senses can be in error, given our extended knowledge of the world, its history, our language and rational faculties, and so on. Every time these crass arguments start on the internet, it's about some jackasses trying to lend credence to their new bullshit position.

The same way you become a "covid denier" - although strictly speaking, I am not denying that we could view the natural world as deterministic. My point is that determinism has nothing to do with free will as the concept is understood, unless nature is presumed to both possess spiritual authority like a God, and conforms to the expectations we hold of religious Godheads. In short, it's about supplanting the actual natural world and science with an essentially Satanic view. If you see enough of the British aristocracy and its counterparts, they basically say they are doing this and laugh at how easy it is to rule the weak. The Nazis were just outright Satanic.


File: 1675994206976.webm (1.25 MB, 720x720, 1:1, wtalow.webm) ImgOps iqdb


File: 1675998809553.jpg (12.26 KB, 206x181, 206:181, 1306109269944.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

The MAD doctrine is definitely a form of security. I'm not saying you're wrong or that national security is the only reason for obfuscation. I'm saying there are more reasons at play. The government(s) or whatever else to which you might want to ascribe these plans are as complicated and internally chaotic as any other organization on the planet, right down to children disagreeing on the rules for how to play jump rope.

Nukes aren't even at all the be all end all. There's tons of other much more dangerous stuff and more secret stuff out there. But it certainly is a good propaganda tool and a convenient pre-established "line in the sand," unlike the question of just what exactly could force NATO or Russia into direct conflict via the proxy war in The Ukraine.


Ooops didn't mean to post that pic lol. Think nothing of it.


File: 1676001460899.png (93.02 KB, 1284x404, 321:101, f.png) ImgOps iqdb


Nah I've alwayas been 100% with that faggot moot when it comes to the magic of chans being that the content is ephemeral. Just like music, it's gone, into the air, almost as soon as you hear it. Deleting things is for faggots.

Besides, said pic has a certain philosophical relevance I had been contemplating before I decided to abandon that direction and go somewhere else instead.


Sure, there are struggles within the ruling clique, but the thing they fear more than anything else is not a revolution, but a Caesar - someone from their own ranks becoming individually too strong and co-opting the mobs from the oligarchy, and undermining this ruling system and replacing it with another. That's the only thing that could realistically bring the current arrangement to an end. Every strategy of the current rulers has been to lock ranks and ensure that there isn't a Caesar or "demagogue" who would buck the system. They have put up fake Caesars of various types. Hitler is obviously this, a tool for the German establishment that kept saying a bunch of shit about a thousand year Reich. FDR played up the comparison with Caesar but he was always a team player, and he was tasked with saving his class from their own incompetence. Trump is obviously played up as a fake change agent, so that the removal of old norms can proceed in a more or less planned way, and he is continuing a long chain of mutations since Nixon in the ruling system. They don't care about a fake revolution, so long as it isn't turned into a real one by an organized interest. Revolutions, true to their name, always end with a recapitulation of the same idea, just done a different way, and usually revolutions are rolled back. The big modern revolutions were all either rolled back or their nature was misunderstood from the outset, and they would be rolled back because the new rulers saw more value in aligning with the prior system than their ostensible mission.

Anyway, the point I was making was not about geopolitics - obviously these things are more complicated - but about the type of mystifications that take place and why they are done.>>202242


I have to unanimously agree with your assessment, even though uninmanity just means my own self because I'm just some guy.

I gues if me and you can see through it, then it's not so occluded. When I was in the business of "fun and games" in my own way, one of my main prongs was to remind people that the best way to lie is to tell the truth because most people most of the time will simply refulse to believe what they see if it conflicts too much with their committed expectations about how the world is supposed to work.


>and usually revolutions are rolled back
I wish. Things like the French Revolution were the ones that pushed the satanic system in which we live today.
Also you're giving the oligarchies to much credit with all that MAD mumbo-jumbo. The reason why massive weapons aren't used frequently is because it will hurt them. That's it. They may be evil but not that stupid (for now). And that's the same reason why they don't have large scale wars neither. Large scale wars may have unpredictable results no matter how much they plan ahead. Wars are delegated to 'disposable' third agents like Ukraine.


And what happened with the French Revolution? The monarchists won and undid almost everything. Ordinary people don't join revolutions for some narrative, but because they are desperate and they're basically forced to fight, and there were poor people who fought for the royalists and against the revolution, even though the royalists offered nothing but death and destruction.

You're engaging with the same crude middle class grasper thinking that leads so much down the pit of despair. That's what they want, for you to think you're part of the silent majority and among the smart people. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, there wasn't the same fear of "MAD", and you had generals willing to use atomic bombs and generals who were preparing as if they would be used in an actual combat, who were ready to bring it on and throw down again. There is a gross misunderstanding of the nature of war in the 20th century, where war is either presented as a wholly false narrative, or the inexorable victory of conspirators against humanity, and in either case wars are presented as eternal and unchangeable, where they happen simply because humans can't get along and the whole point is to define who is friend and who is enemy. The usual behavior of states and the people in them isn't to fight the power or the establishment, but to join the ruling Satan. The reactionaries embraced it, and the revolutionaries embraced it. The people who really didn't want this are the people who never had a say in the matter in the first place.


Anyway a philosophy / reading general is very helpful, so we don't have these endless "durrr free will" threads. Assembling the counterarguments in one place would spare us the intriguers who want to waste our time with navel-gazing. It is important to understand where these things come from and to offer a useful ground to stand on.


The idea of philosophy is great but the people it attracts is what makes my eyes roll. Purely in It for mental masturbation reasons I knew these things that you don’t know so I am superior hahahahhaha. Knowing a bunch of trival shit but still somehow being that low vibrational & lack any self awareness but associate with philosophy is funny.

Moving on to genetic determinism I think it’s a losers way of trying ln allot of cases I am not saying it doesn’t exist everyone has a window for success some bigger than others I do get the impression the guys that always cry about genetics and genetic determinism are just pussies in allot of cases but we don’t know we have to assume that person is totally being truthful which lets be real most people can’t be trusted


Genetics is 99% pseudoscience and 1% making the trivial claim that children sort of resemble their parents, and obscuring any mechanism at work which would actually explain what happens. You can't connect DNA to useful outcomes in an organism - if we could, we would see true biological engineering by now, and creating artificial life out of basic components should be trivial. All you can really do with genetics thus far is suggest such-as-such organism has this DNA pattern and it means something, maybe - but then you're reading into DNA things that it doesn't actually do. If someone is using "genes" as an explanation for any complex trait and shouts at you for looking at anything mechanistically, you're dealing with a retard who should be ignored.

I wouldn't have said genetics is 99% pseudoscience, if not for the sheer volume of bullshit that is presented as science today. There was an actual question asked - how do we know what a child will be given two parents and certain environmental conditions - and it was turned into a just-so story so that a political coup could be engineered. That's the sad fate of humanity, because certain people don't want us to have anything good.


Wow look, another ignorant faggot.


>we would see true biological engineering by now

we do, it's called embryo selection. look up steve hsu, some chink scientist who has been working on this for ages. his company can predict height within an inch/cm/whatever using polygenic scores. if a succubus wants to do the work of IVF, she can pay for sperm and fertilize a bunch of her eggs, pick the embryo with the highest PGS for height and get a taller offspring. the same thing will be done for intelligence soon. we don't have to edit genes to predict complex traits using this method.


>genetics is 99% pseudoscience

Kek, this nigga, lmao, people are beyond retared and stupid.


You're a retard, genetics literally affect your whole body from looks, to organs and neurological stuff. There's a lot of diseases and retardations that you can get just based on your genes.

I believe that we have a free will and that environmental stuff can definitely do things just like traumas and so forth but genes are real and sometimes they can just fuck you up.


Pure pseudoscience and cargo cult thinking. If such a thing were possible, it would be rolled out. They need to believe such a thing is possible to sell the myth.
Genetics doesn't tell much of anything. They invent all manner of pseudoscience to convince us that they're made of magic. That's the imperial faith in "the science", that they'll make themselves gods and fulfill this Luciferian idea that was inherent to the British Empire.


File: 1676385000524.jpg (456.09 KB, 2048x2048, 1:1, 1653516791715.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Is there anything more retarded than Stoicism?


Lmao, an actual schizo, kek. For real, take your schizo meds, you're delusional.


It's probably one of the most practical and timelessly useful philosophies ever created.
There is nothing retarded about it.


Hey! What's so bad about being schizo?
You devaluate the entire purposes of this site…


You don’t even know what cargo cult means.


It's what you do when you dance around like retards about "the immortal science" of whatever, rather than saying "hey, here's a thing that might be helpful, let's test it." The genetic myth that you call "the science" is based on repeated and flagrant untestable assumptions and a ridiculous premise from the start of the "experiment". It's shit like that which leads to Mengele and all the atrocities done ostensibly for "science", but which are really just the sadism of a bunch of perverts given institutional cover. There was no science in cutting off the tails of rats for a specious "disproof" of acquired characteristics (and this experiment relied on a total bastardization of Lamarck's original argument - and it should be noted Darwin was not even refuting Lamarck, and resented people making philosophical claims like that even though he agreed with all the imperial legends). From the start, the eugenics faction flagrantly disregarded basic reality in order to make their political claims, and then claimed that if anyone didn't believe their cockamamie theory, they "denied nature" or "denied heredity". The question was over how traits pass to offspring, and so if you wanted to answer something with genetics, the answers you get have remained up to today "not much at all". You can see some DNA patterns which correspond to chemical processes, but the magic scientists can't even figure out consistently a general theory to build from DNA a finished organism, or predict what splicing something will do in a way that would be appreciated in any engineering application, or in any scientific theory. No complex trait can be reducible to a single "gene" or any known combination of "genes". The shit is literally lifted from Antiquity and theories of the four fucking humours, and we're told to march in circles about how it's the future. Meanwhile, actual scientific knowledge is destroyed because it doesn't fit this political coup of the eugenicist murdering murderers. We know basically nothing new since the 1950s in biology, and this has much to do with the retardation imposed by ideological science once DNA was discovered. DNA should have been understood as the final refutation of the politicized genetic theory, and for a while this eugenics horseshit only persisted for purely political reasons, until it violently asserts itself in the academy and the eugenicists wage a holy war against any idea that tells these murdering murderers that their theory is retarded. I blame science fiction for teaching people retarded psuedoscience that is basically Scientology-tier insanity. It's legit Satanic religion calling itself science at this point.

I don't think the retard brigade here can even engage with the subject matter, without retreating to the institutions. They can't defend themselves or do anything other than spout platitudes, because they've never had a single argument. But hey, Hitlerian faggots need their ego boost to make up for being human failures!


>genetics is pseudoscience
No more leftypol pagagraph sperging. Do you have a single fact to back that kekery up? We have sequenced the human genome and are making huge advances in understanding genetics even as we speak
>We know basically nothing new since the 1950s in biology



File: 1676426636625.jpg (27.61 KB, 600x800, 3:4, full_20130915_134105.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

holy crap


Hooray the eugenicist ivy league circuit promoting their core ideology! Much proof, very science!
Dear god, you're literally looking to the authority to tell you what to think and refuse to put two and two together. The version of genetics you're suggesting is a pure political fiction. There are no "gene therapies". All of that is just a cover so pharma can engineer their kill shots when they force vaccines on everyone, like what they're doing now. You're a fucking enabler.


If genetics are false, what is responsible for you acting silly as all heck? Fate? God? 5Ghz?


So you don't have a credible argument? Don't retreat to authority to tell you what to think. Defend the claim that "genes are destiny" which is what is being implied by the retards here. Tell me what genes and the mechanism by which a gene results in the outcome in any organism. This is a very simple mechanistic understanding that you would envision in any scientific theory, before you can invoke some dialectical magic to say anything can be anything.
If you did answer that question, you would find that "genes" can only be traced to chemical actions, and even here, the scientist is sort of guessing that swapping one gene for another will produce a different chemical. They couldn't do anything more in any sort of consistent approach.
There is a long history of grafting and similar things which are not "genetic" in their function, but something else entirely. Selective breeding and grafting have been used in agriculture for a long time, so there is a body of knowledge among agronomists about this stuff. None of it conforms to this highly political version of genetics that is purely about a coup and justifying these murdering murderers - the same murderers who brag that they're going to starve us out and make us suffer.


File: 1676428901315.jpg (92.11 KB, 1500x1484, 375:371, 813bmTeQouL._SL1500_.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

Yes, most isms are more retarded than stoicism.
fuck science, fuck studies, fuck "gene therapy", fuck vaccines, fuck big pharma


You sure do want to fuck a lot of things, "wizard"
That was quite a response to being called silly. Maybe you are butthurt. that means you are so mad as if your butt is hurting so you can't sit down good


My new official philosophy is wizardry. Fuck reading the ramblings of privileged aristocrats and bored rich guys, seriously. All these normalfags from Socrates to Nietzsche thinking they matter, what they think matters, what they do matters, what they write matters. IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. It's another pathetic cope to deal with life when it doesn't go 100% how you wanted it to go. The academic/scholar/philosophy cope is one of the most damaging ones in my experience, you read some books others never even heard about and you think you are de gangsta philozoper OG comin through. No, you aren't. Or maybe you are, so what? You will still die like a miserable dog and live like a slave. I will play GTA San Andreas instead of wasting my precious free time on what Daddy Schopenhauer thought about this and that.


If you want to indulge yourself and play shitty games for escapism you might as well just do it, no need to fool yourself into believing that any sort of methodical thinking is a cope, it's really silly and unnecessary. Just play the shitty game you wanna play, wiz. Also playing video games is not a philosophy, either, it's just playing video games. Take it for what it is.


>shitty games
>San Andreas
You are on my list now, buddy.

How is it not a philosophy, though? I don't think philosophy has been copyrighted by Socrates, Kant or Sartre. Everything is a philosophy, every way people look at the world and life. My philosophy is simple (meaning that it's not pretentious shit) but it works. If you want to waste your time and believe you are getting ANYWHERE by studying philosophy, hey go ahead. You'll learn the hard way, I just tried to warn you.

But gotta love how delusional people like you instantly go on defensive when anyone slanders your precious fay-low-sophie. Studying philosophy is for suckers. You are infobombing your brain only but you won't get any closer to any coherent ideology or philosophy. You choose or make up a philosophy and that's the end, you try to stick with it. Studying endless paragraphs and pretentious writings that were created exactly for the purpose of gaining prestige for their authors is a fool's errand. Bitch.


I don't read philosophy. But yeah western games are shit, to me how characters look is of utter most importance and western games have disgusting looking characters through and through, so you know, even when they're kinda good like Quake, Fallout and Planescape: Torment they're populated by incredibly ugly characters, so it becomes bad. But Tetris is nice looking though, if you call that a western game.


Looks fine to me. I like the artworks/loading screens too. Planescape Torment also has an interesting style. At least I prefer western games and art to generic bishounen heroes and anime succubi.


We are electrochemical automatons and free will notion is nonsense leftover scrap from priests deluding themselves over theodicy problem.


If we are automata, then a feature of that automata is cognition and reaction to events around it. This is the basic Satanic view of the world - that we are our own personal God, and we make reality as we see fit. Eventually the automata meet each other, and there is one big "Satan" which dominates and tells everyone else what the truth is. Reality becomes mediated by empire, and this eventually leads to religion, and… we're back to where we are now. Regression is always preferred in Satanic thought systems, or "progress" is only towards this primordial light. Otherwise, you're supposing there is actually some God or something regulating the automata, or else you're only saying a tautology that humans are animals. Of course humans are animals, and a particular event in space and causality. That doesn't tell you anything, other than a simple disproof of the Satanic position that we are actually "infinite light" or some nonsense that regresses to an imagined before time. There's no "primordial light" that involves us. Humans were just an accident and there is nothing special about the human mind, except that we were able to put two and two together and create symbolic language to communicate these concepts to each other, and build off of them to create new understandings. More is made of this faculty of rationality than is actually there.

Anyway, if you think religion was about "me wantee", you weren't really getting the point. If I want to indulge in myself, I can think of far better questions to ask than this regressive and retarded shit. Of course I have free will to act - who is stopping me from going out and shooting someone, if I really wanted to? I don't want to do that, but a considerable number of people in this world do horrible shit that would warrant me shooting them dead. I don't do that because it would be counterproductive, and eventually I'd ask myself if the killing would ever end, because these people have a way of insinuating themselves. It would be far better if we did not go around killing people for being offensive twats, and we could all get along. Unfortunately, many in humanity are not so enlightened, but there has been a baseline level of decency so we aren't killing each other for nothing. Certain people take advantage of that decency and see it as their birthright. That's what the "debate" over free will is about - it's not about a genuine investigation, but a bunch of pissants who want an excuse for degeneracy and their stupid selfish desire for position, because we live in a failed society that tells us to suffer and die so a few aristocrats can rule the world. It's stupid and we could clearly do better, but we're not allowed to have better outside of our limited space, and whatever we can build with each other. If any of us try to build a society independent of that shit, it is eventually co-opted and shit up, because aristocracy cannot abide the little people having a shred of genuine happiness in this world. It goes against their concept of themselves.


File: 1676624130518.jpg (5.47 MB, 2952x1827, 328:203, 3454324532.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I've been reading Schopenhauer and Kant for nearly a year now; everything makes perfect senses. I cannot recommend reading Schopenhauer enough, he explains abstract concepts very simply, and basically spoon-feeds the reader in comparison to most other philosophers. I would recommend reading the Critique of Pure Reason first, but just up to the Transcendental Analytic and continue on until you get up to the deduction of the categories. Then read the Fourfold Root of Sufficient Reason, and then the WAWR Vol.1 and 2, or you could start with Schopenhauer's essays.


how much do you personally agree with their philosophies? would you consider yourself a transcendental idealist?


File: 1676631044875.gif (4.45 MB, 636x479, 636:479, 27C1E39A-6598-406E-9A01-B9….gif) ImgOps iqdb

Determinism is not free will, but a way to obtain more free will probability. I do believe fate exists, but is more so a multi-road thing. The less capable the human the more intertwined their fate is. We have a control in the way our life unfolds after a certain maturity threshold; due to biological impudence such as strength, intelligence, and parents. I can see through every man like if they were made of glass. Due to biological drives its easy to see when someone has no freewill. Is your want free will? is it your want? what your body wants? is denying your basic biological instruction your definition of free will? You can even decipher what free will is. You humans in general are too ignorant you try to leap thinking you can reach the other-side and end up falling down the cliff. Doesn't matter what you say or think you are. When someone who has free will sees you they can determine what you really are. Ultimately they do not care like i do not for i am not half-wise. I have not read one philosophical book, because i am a real philosopher. I do not name books or quote a man, because i am my own book and man. I am what i am and do not try to be anything i am not, thus am above the living. Free will is something an npc cannot have; humans will not know or understand for a very long time.



File: 1676780226608.jpg (95.06 KB, 1008x514, 504:257, 234323433.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I agree with Schopenhauer's modification of Kant's Transcendental Idealism, Schopenhauer's philosophy is like a perfect reflection of reality. The parts that I disagree with are mostly to do with pessimism, I am a pessimist but like Nietzsche I believe pessimism is just a sign of decadence, and more to do with the world becoming more and more worthless as one's knowledge becomes greater. I don't believe happiness at all exists, but a life devoid of ennui would've been possible hundreds of years ago.


>You humans
Was reading until your Freudian slip of the tongue exposed yourself as the energy sucking immortal vampire you are. Suck a dick you fucking causality tampering archon of malice. This is a thread about "human" philosophy not whatever the fuck shitter critter you are and I am demanding you go back and leave all of us wizards alone and out of your nefarious affairs to lead us into temptation. The fucking gall.



File: 1676892292197.jpg (27.59 KB, 600x800, 3:4, 1676426636625.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


>I cannot recommend reading Schopenhauer enough
>Schopenhauer's philosophy is like a perfect reflection of reality

Someone who posits voluntary starvation and passive self-destruction as the pinnacle of what humanity should strive towards to is a moron who needs to be disregarded asap. I can't take Schopenhauer seriously.
Also, he was anti-NEET and anti-suicide, it's beyond me why some wizards consider him as one of the most important philosophers of all time. Yes, you read right. He was anti-suicide (except for death via voluntary starvation, which was completely cool for him). He also said that to live the NEET life, to live only to take and not contribute anything in return was something negative.

Schopenhauer, like all idealists, belongs in the trash bin. It's shameful even for Nietzsche to have taken his basics from such a pretentious senile person.
Schopenhauer's philosophy isn't an accurate reflection of reality at all. He purposely downplays the good side of existence and dismisses it as cope or illusion while focusing only on negative events. He was a bitter, depressed aristocrat who had no real concerns and troubles in his life yet managed to cling onto his bitterness and hatred despite his comfy circumstances. He is a great example of how one shouldn't live at all, if anything.

Nietzsche is much better reading though like I said, his fault is that he takes Arthur as his basic foundation and builds on that. You can't build anything cool on a pile of shit. The whole brain rotting idealism that Schopenhauer and eastern philosophy uses leads to nowhere. It's a cope for weak and passive people who can't even kill themselves properly but only indirectly. (That's why starvation to death is okay, because it doesn't require any effort.)


>good side of existence
There is none. All pleasure of life is fleeting and unsatisfying. Even if you were perpetually in the state of happiness, being chained to it like a dog is worse than non existing.


This is the High Quality philosophy thread. Take your "There is no joy, no purpose, existence sucks, tfw no gf, I wish I was not alive but yet I still make the choice to live everyday lmao" blackpill shitposting back to your ironic Discord.


There was no irony in my words whatsoever, just my observations. If you can't understand what I have said, at least don't try to put labels on me, they mean nothing.


File: 1676930676923.jpg (39.97 KB, 500x500, 1:1, 1676930604015951.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>non existing.
You just did a dualism


"Nothing means anything, everything means nothing. That response? means nothing"
If your post means nothing, then don't post.


It's not a problem of "idealism vs. materialism", which is really a false dichotomy. It's just that Germans are fucking stupid in general. German philosophy is a big nothing and a wrong step that was able to insinuate itself because it infests institutions and demands everyone get with their stupid program, whether it's Hegel or Schopenhauer or whatever they believe in. It's worthwhile to study it to know its errors, but the entire project of German philosophy is about destroying the idea that people have any agency or ability to resist the autocrat. It can only be purposed towards that end, and it turns into a cope for Germans sucking at life and empire. Whatever good the Germans did was in spite of such a ruinous philosophy, and of course the philosophy is intended as a way to keep the plebs dumb and ignorant, because the Germans only wanted an aristocracy. That's all their project ever was. The fucking place should have stayed conquered and divided so it doesn't come back, but alas, that didn't happen.

Really, if someone is looking for a guru to give them all the right ideas, they are doing everything wrong. That's what I hate more than anything, the cargo cult stupidity surrounding philosophy. The proper use of this line of inquiry is to cut through bullshit so we can do what we wanted to do instead of run in circles like retards. Rather than solve this problem, philosophy is tasked with exacerbating it long after it is clear this shit doesn't work and never worked.

Unless there are some very enlightened Poor Philosophers coming very soon, we're all fucked. Institutional philosophy is a bunch of shit and has regressed into pure nonsense and liberals posturing about how they're totally gods. It's disgusting that the great and mighty human civilization has come to this, but here we are.

Myself, I tend towards materialism, but these are really approaches to how we ask the question "what this is" rather than an explanation in of themselves. So far as we are communicating these concepts through language, we are all "idealists", in that we are only able to speak of that which is identified or that we fashion an identity for. A crude materialist just fixes their conceits about the world and doesn't ask any questions except those that are right in front of him, like a trained animal. A dialectical materialist fashions bullshit to do roughly the same thing, unless they figure out the secret to that system and what it is really about. Getting past the bullshit within "dialectical materialism" does make it useful, so long as you don't start saying mystical shit about contradictions in nature. Properly understood, Marx's doctrine would suggest an analytical approach to problems before a "dialectical" one - the most obvious criticism of something would be to break it down into components. Someone who really gets the thinking would have understood that the analytical approach was more in line with critique, but the charlatans who were tasked with defusing any potential for something new doubled down on "contradictions in nature" and other such nonsense.

I'd rather not get too attached to a dogma. It is better to look at the world with what we know now, rather than be chained to a past and to institutional authority. That's been the problem in the past century - we're not allowed to think for ourselves in any genuine way, because all is subsumed in a few ideologies ready-made for you and if you have any idea that doesn't fit into that system, it is co-opted and perverted to serve the institutions anyway. It is clear that the ideas of the past century are woefully inadequate for any society we would want, and what was built only survives from inertia from generations of better men who built the damn thing. They built it so that any challenge to their rule would be destroyed on sight, and they built it too well. The ugly side of it is that they built it in a way that cannibalizes their own intellectual basis for its perpetuation, and the men who are in the vanguard of destroying thought are pale shadows of the rulers a century ago. Considering the men who ruled then were not good men at all, this is a really bad sign.


Ah yes, the serious philsophy thread where certain viewpoints are banned for no good reason


Make me.


Well, those "life sucks and has no purpose" are low-quality and ubiquitous. If you're going to do nihilism at least make something interesting. No one needs to boost that shit because there is plenty of that, and you're not banned anyway.

Those who really get into nihilism learn in short time that much of the faggotry calling itself nihilism is just an ideology of supplicating to the ruling power. They don't want to think of the implications of nihilism on their comfy existence. The stupider of them get into this posturing like they are something. They're not wise to anything. They're just fags.


Have you ever read Schopenhauer, you seem to base your entire opinion on him based on some rather superficial prejudices. He doesn't downplay the "good sides" of existence, he dedicates half of his book to explaining how pain and boredom can be nullified through art. He literally wrote an entire guide on how to be happy, he wasn't anti-neet, he just said that it would be better for men of higher intellect who are not prone to boredom to be NEETs. Physicists like Max Planck, and Schrodinger read Schopenhauer, with the latter being profoundly influenced by him; Quantum Mechanics and contemporary neuroscience are literally proving Idealism right. Schopenhauer was sympathetic towards men who were suicidal, his father killed himself for christ's sake, and he was anti-suicide due to his metaphysics.
Eastern philosophy leads to having peace of mind, Nietzsche was great, but he literally ended up going mad in an attempt to "affirm" life. Schopenhauer never denied that life could be meaningful, he quite literally states that if the average person was capable of will-less perception then the world would be worth living in.


are you aware of your improper and excessive use of the word literally?


"Proving idealism right" is a noob-tier understanding… which is exactly in line with German quote-unquote "thought". In any event, QM doesn't "prove idealism", and that's the German way of doing science - they literally don't have an exact word for "science" in the sense that we have it. Quantum Mechanics is getting beaten up pretty badly. It was attractive because it purported to explain many things that were understood by the mathematical approach to physics, but it has always led to very problematic and nonsensical claims. Those claims could be resolved by those who retain their sense, but when idiots come along to make philosophical claims through "The Science", the stupidity is perpetuated. Realistically, physics didn't advance much once someone figured out nuclear fission, and the popular understanding was deliberately retarded so ordinary people couldn't tell up from down. For most practical purposes, we're still following Newton. The idea that "Quantum Mechanics" powers your computer is pure ideology. Computers are a machine we built according to specifications we had in mind for a particular task. There's nothing mystical about it, but leave it to a German philosopher to not understand basic shit. The whole thing is pants on head retardation intended to keep the plebs ignorant, so actual science remains the domain of an aristocracy. That's all it is. So far as any advances did come out of German science, it is entirely in spite of their philosophy. Perhaps making such an obvious trap philosophy works to weed out those who don't know what they're talking about, but they only manage to succeed because everyone else has other stupid ideas regarding science, like the science-as-magic Harry Potter horseshit the British Empire does.

About the only way idealism is "proven right" is because any method we have to express a thought in communication is reducible to ideas. We don't have a language for dealing with "fundamental matter", nor do we have any analogue down to the simplest message we could send to another; nor do we have any connection to fundamental reality in internal deliberations. We know a material world exists, but we can never truly touch it. We can only touch the ideas we imagine the material world to be, and in that way, science is ultimately concerned with ideas. This was known before the 19th century, and unfortunately philosophy promoted a retardation that was intended to stunt intellectually childhood development, so that thought leaders could inject their ideas before someone was able to defend themselves against the brain rot. That's why Hegeloids infested the school, because they found a great way to keep the people retarded and unable to resist a new aristocracy. Schopenhauer is just the other face of that same trend to keep people retarded. I don't think there is a German concept of actually giving a shit about the truth, or if it exists, its advocates have remained quiet. Germans always lie.


It's not important.


Yes, this is what I mean by denying the positive side of existence and only recognizing the negative side of it. So I guess keep up the good work, make yourself even more miserable and get even more detached from existence, so that you won't pose a threat to those who want to crush you while enjoying themselves. After all, that's the whole point of idealism. To justify the social hierarchy and to prevent people from taking things into their own control.

I wouldn't just say german philosophy only. I'd say most of philosophy generally revolves around idealism because people are always afraid of changes or are too narrow-minded to think through what their favorite ideology leads to and just who benefit from said ideology. Pessimism is the decaying state of idealism and yet one last desperate effort to preserve the status quo, to defend the social pyramid.

I think materialism vs idealism is a solid ground to classify things or to base discussions on. I'm the past the age when I still fell for basic, childish sophistry which is what all kind of idealism is at its core. Human language not being perfect isn't something that proves the side of idealism to me, it simply can be explained by that we are still in the evolutionary phase and we haven't perfected communication yet.

I actually read most of his stuff, yeah and the memory is still fresh. It was really a chore to read the majority of his works, one can tolerate stupidity for only a limited amount of time.


He viewed it only as a COPE (he thought anything fun or good was just that ultimately). Something that can help you enjoy yourself for a short while but ultimately boredom and suffering will come back to haunt you again, according to him at least. That's another bullshit I disagree, by the way. Being bored all the time is sign of a dumb person, not someone who is creative or intelligent. A creative person always knows how to occupy himself. And I go further than Schopenhauer, I think art can provide a solid reason to embrace the will to life and existence. It's not a cope for me, I literally live for art. And I'm a materialist. See, this is the difference. The idealist thinks everything is just a cope, no matter how fun it is, the idealist spends all his time in eager anticipation of death and waiting for his own kind of "heaven" or "awakening" from this """horrible""" demiurgic plane. So if we take anime or waifus for example, the idealist is waiting for death because he naively believes that finally he will go to animeland and be with his waifu for eternity. The materialist waifufag on the other hand is happy NOW, here and now, on this "wretched" and "evil" Earth because he is together with his waifu already so to speak and knows that there is no other life, reincarnation or anything like that so better enjoy anime and happy thoughts while alive.
>he wasn't anti-neet
The fourth book of The World as will and presentation. Read it. It's only a single sentence somewhere, but it is there, he condemns NEETing and leeching off of others. Not surprising, because eastern philosophy and their ethics too always make a point to say to your face that you should get your daily bread by honest work and not otherwise.
>Quantum Mechanics and contemporary neuroscience are literally proving Idealism right.
It's what happens when scientists get infected with philosophical idealism. Of course they come up with a bunch of shady theories to justify their favorite philosophers. These physicists were all idealists to begin with and so projected it onto their projects and such. You'll see what you want to see ultimately. That's why putting your faith blindly in science or anything else for that matter will end up making you retarded.
>he was anti-suicide due to his metaphysics
…Which like I said is the result of him wanting to justify his weakness and incompetence. He most likely wanted to kill himself but didn't have the balls to do it. Instead of admitting that honestly, he went around and invented a system that praises passivity and apathy. Classic resentment morality. If others are doing what you want to do but can't do then hey, just invent a moral system that says you are right and they are wrong! Problem solved. You can feel good about yourself, despite the fact that you didn't do, say or think anything extra-ordinary.
>Nietzsche was great, but he literally ended up going mad in an attempt to "affirm" life
No, he had a biological sickness that took away his reasoning power. He didn't go mad because of his philosophy or anything like that.
>Eastern philosophy leads to having peace of mind
Yes, for those who aren't capable of achieving true, genuine pleasures in life or those who have weak nerves and can't enjoy life. It's a cope.

Schopenhauer was no different from your average religionfag basically, he was only somewhat more intelligent. But as for what he was trying to say, it's the same shit as most of the world's religions preach. Which again, were invented to pacify people and to make them put up with their horrible living conditions while the privileged elite kept on living a life of luxury.
"You don't need anything to be happy in this life."
"Positive thoughts and peace of mind are more important than material possessions."
"This world is a realm of unlimited sorrow and suffering, don't get too attached to anything :)"
I could list all the horrible memes idealism planted in the heads of the masses and which are still prevalent even in this so called "materialistic" age we live in.


Why do you have such an autistic hatred for Germans? Materialism is fucking stupid, and only "I LOVE SCIENCE" tier retards believe in it, the entire world exists only on the presupposition of a subject. Kant already destroyed your reddit tier r/atheist arguement, by proving that space and time are conditions for experience, and consequently matter is a production of the brain's spatiotemporal scaffolding.
Stop riding the dick of Nietzsche and use your brain for once.


Idealism has nothing to do with your stupid Marxist drivel about muh social hierachy, it's quite literally about how reality is constituted. Schopenhauer points out that for stupid people, boredom is the main source of their suffering, hence he shows that a man's personality is worth more then wealth. He doesn't say that art is just a cope, he says that it literally elevates the person to what the epicureans described as the most ideal state. He condemns lazy and stupid rich people who neet around since they are still as miserable as they were before when working.
Why are Nietzschefags so incredibly insufferable, Schopenhauer was an elitist, Schopenhauer is where Nietzsche got his entire aristocracy larp from. There is no heaven in Subjective Idealism, you're just spewing out a shallower version of Nietzsche's tirades against idealism.


Right, the world revolves around you. Literal autism. Kant was an idiot, like many philosophers who couldn't get nor accept basic shit.

If you want actually worthwhile philosophy, the product of the Enlightenment philosophers in England and France is the real shit, picking up where philosophers of the ancient and medieval period left off. The whole tradition of German idealism is reactionary tripe and a move in the wrong direction. You get a few crazy Russian motherfuckers who are pretty cool. Krautland got fucked by having one of the stupidest intellectual classes humanity ever produced, and they've been very effective at insinuating themselves in the institutions more than anything else.

The world existed before any "idea" of it. Idealism is a problem for us, rather than anything intrinsic to the universe. You'd have to believe that "mind" is a special substance, when a child can tell you they fall asleep, and no human ever overcomes being the product of material forces. Dualism was the last gasp of a serious treatment of mind co-existent with matter. The only way to salvage idealism as a "real description" was to promote this Germanic horseshit where anything can be anything, and that is where philosophy became purely mystical instead of a line of inquiry that was actually useful. The late 19th century saw everything that wasn't occulted surrounded in a veil of mystery, as the victory of the secret societies and conspiracies showed what this really was. But go on, keep believing in your fake God and "me wantee" tier understanding of the world that is something even a child can see through, unless you brainwash them and threaten them with death for noncompliance.

I don't think you're capable of engaging with the idea I'm raising. Plenty of dumbass Krauts think they have the master key and do this guru thing. It's a sickness. I'm not even a particularly smart person, but I know the smell of bullshit, and someone has to say something about it.

Imagine being this much of a cuckold for people who want to kill you. You aren't part of the elite, lol.
I'm not a Marxist for what it's worth, and I looked at the Marxist writings a lot because usually I'm arguing against Marxists. Can't speak for the other wizards, but it's not like Marx is the first social critic or the first person to suggest that maybe you didn't have to supplicate to the state like a fag.

My view is extreme idealism is a death cult, because "idea" is completely fictitious. Particularly, it obsesses over an eternal imminence and a return to an imagined primordial light, claiming that the truth lies in the past which drags everything back to it. This is a trap and a well known one, and it has the same result every time - the pure idealist goes insane and realizes at the end it was all a lie. We're receiving a really big awakening regarding that now, because for the first time in human history, a lot of ordinary people can write to each other from across the world, and there is of course an effort to fill the internet with pure garbage and throw off anyone who works against the cargo cult ruling over us. But, eugenics is such insane garbage that its enemies cannot abide it no matter how many threats its advocates use. They will probably win for a time, create a world of suffering, and eventually they will recede and act like they dindu nothing. That's how these scammers always operate - as long as they have someone to shit on, it's all good. They don't believe in working or doing anything for themselves. All they think about is how to conquer some slaves to do literally everything for them. It's faggotry.

>Human language not being perfect isn't something that proves the side of idealism to me,

It's not just about human language, but any means by which we can send a message. Conceptually, communication involves ideas rather than raw material "substance". If you construe matter as some fundamental essence, you are dealing with an idea of matter rather than "fundamental reality". It's why positivism degrades into being just another form of idealism, but a reduced metaphysics which is obsessed with sensory inputs. Materialism is not saying the universe is fundamentally something, but that looking at the substance that comprises ideas is a way to construct ideas for us in the first place. No idea has meaning without something substantive representing it. There isn't a communication that does not involve some substantive, quantifiable and qualifiable exchange, and we understand those quantities and qualities as ideas rather than the raw matter itself. We would have to.
> it simply can be explained by that we are still in the evolutionary phase and we haven't perfected communication yet.
We're always "evolving" or changing our understanding, because that is what we do as animals. I agree in some way that our understanding of what "this" is will change, and must change to overcome the present impasse where history is frozen in place and the only ideas permissible in the mainstream are lies, damned lies, and statistical manipulation. There were suggestions of this during the 20th century, but they weren't found in the halls of the "truth tellers" who told us what we're allowed to think. It was done behind the curtain in ways that occult what is happening, and it was no longer permitted to acknowledge basic reality, particularly the names of powerful men. It used to be that you knew who the ruling captains of the world were, even though they made a show of how majestic and mysterious they were. The rulers would not be shy about their real plans in writing, beyond a basic level of obfuscation. During the 20th century, the rulers saw that they needed to occult what they were doing, because too many people were doubting the ruling ideas, and it was no longer possible to keep people as stupid as the rulers wanted them to be. It would require aggressive poisoning to continue the war against the people of the world, and reliance on cuckolds and Judases to ensure that eugenics would carry out its mission.


It literally is. The literary presentation on a post is a good indicator of how much the writer is invested in making a valuable contribution. To use a term excessively is to pad the post to give an illusion of substance. A cop-out.


Materialism is accused of being nihilistic, and as far as giving humans any purpose, it is so. A material view acknowledges that there is a world of which we can speak, whereas "pure idealism" creates a mythical retelling that is one lie after another. We would, being what we are, construct ideas that are appropriate to the actual world, because the world is the only thing that we can be certain of. We cannot be certain of ourselves or any conceit we hold, but if the world doesn't exist, then none of this discussion would be possible. Religion in its earliest form is giving not just information but a structure which people can follow. There is not a worthwhile authority that would be anything short of a religion, which is why philosophy is such a loser profession. When religions fail to answer something the adherent wanted in the first place, they resort to excessive copes to save themselves. The only constant is that there is a world that religion ostensibly relates to. Science proper only exists because there is a religious and spiritual view of the world preceding it - without this, science would only be capable of crude iterations of practice and we would be chasing our tails. That is one of the many errors of scientism or "The Science", where a conceit about what the world is takes over our native faculties that allow us to appreciate science in the first place. Religion to be useful is a product of those native faculties, rather than something fed to us by a pedagogue. No learning can actually take place unless someone holds to the faculties they possess or build organically through their own investigation of the world. We do this as children if we are at all curious, and certain pedagogies seek to circumvent this process to basically mind control children as soon as they can. We are only seeking education because we are made to, rather than education providing some "super-truths" that are only accessible to an elite. Those who hold the educational institutions have every reason to lie about the content of education, until the suckers are in the trap.


t. retard that got filtered by Kant
I cannot comprehend how a person could be this stupid, Idealism has nothing to do with the word "Idea", especially in the way you are using it. All Transcendental Idealism states is that not all of our knowledge is gained in experience, for the knowledge that experience presupposes i.e. space and time are the reason we can have intuitive knowledge of geometry and maths. You have proved why Kant is wrong, or why Schopenhauer is wrong, apart from claiming that he was too “scared” to commit suicide, despite Nietzsche being suicidal for most of his life. Unless you have another way of proving that synthetic a priori propositions aren’t grounded on the brain’s spatiotemporal scaffolding, then Idealism stands correct. If you want to actually “refute” Idealism you would have to actually understand it first, apart from arguing like a succubi and using stupid emotional based arguments. It's also ironic you consider Nietzsche to be more "neet" freindly then Schopenhauer, ">Or would it be proper to count such dilettanti and old maids as the mawkish apostle of virginity, Mainlander, among the genuine Germans? After all he was probably a Jew (all Jews become mawkish when they moralize)."
Nietzsche was more miserable than Schopenhauer.
>"Pain is vanquishing my life and my will." He wrote in a letter. "What months, what a summer I have had! My physical agonies were as many and various as the changes I have seen in the sky. In every cloud there is some form of electric charge which grips me suddenly and reduces me to complete misery. Five times I have called for Doctor Death, and yesterday I hoped it was the end — in vain.

>"Though I am in my forty-fifth year and have published about fifteen books…there has not yet been a single even moderately reputable review of any one of my books. People help themselves out now with the phrases "eccentric," "pathological," "psychiatric"."

>"It hurts me frightfully that in these fifteen years not one single person has 'discovered' me, has needed me, has loved me."



I'm not the other anon. Frankly I find Nietzsche to be a contemptible faggot and a contributor to today's retardation of moral philosophy. Lately I've gotten in to the Scottish Enligthenment guys. Hume is a lot better than most of the Germanoids and actually makes sense. Empiricism is necessary to conduct meaningful science, and the whole of Kraut poison is to tell us that anything can be anything, so that empiricism is impossible. Marx is very helpful because he gets what the rot is, and the useful takeaways from German philosophy without succumbing to it. Most of his successors aren't so bright, and of course Marx has ulterior motives. Marx gets a lot of blame for shit the Kraut reactionaries themselves did, practicing the projection and cope they would use when they're totally perfect war plan fails, which anyone with any sense would have told them. We've been paying the price of dumb war fanatic Krauts, most of whom drew the war plans without actually having to fight that stupid war, and who blamed the generals who were tasked with implementing this stupid idea instead of themselves. They've always been covering up their incompetence with copes. The Krauts could have just not started a war over stupid bullshit, and not enabled the faction of humanity who just wants us all to suffer for the pure thrill of it all.

I would say Kant is a typical virgin loser, but I'm on wizchan and being a virgin loser myself, I'm one to talk. I can say from experience that virgin losers adopt self-defeating and irrational tendencies. That's what the gnostic idiots castrating themselves do - obsess over sex as a subsitute for dealing with the world as it is and as it could be. I'm lucky to have the accumulated knowledge of forebears so I don't have to make the same mistake myself. Anyone who wants you to make your own mistakes clearly doesn't want you to win. It's part of this culture of filtering everyone for eugenic purposes.

You clearly did not listen to my explanation of what idealism and materialism even refer to. If you're looking for "fundamental truth" that makes your decisions easy and unchanging, so you don't have to think ever again, you're a fag. The only fundamental truths would be things that appear to us to be irrational, because the world wasn't created for us or our conceits, nor was it created to conform to the petty wants a human would possess. To the world, it doesn't matter what happens to us, and there is a certain peace in knowing that which none of the idealist copes will ever accomplish.

I'm one of those weird people who just finds theories of the world and guiding philosophy intrinsically interesting. I don't have an agenda beyond "don't do more stupid shit". I've seen enough stupid shit in my life, in a world where we can clearly do better than this. Retarded shit promoting the worst of the 19th century idealism is a large contributor to why we can't have nice things today, when the answers to many social problems are right in front of us. Of course, the answer to social problems would be the removal of those who have an unceasing desire to make others suffer to glorify themselves.

There are two twin evils - German idealism and its nonsensical pseudo-philosophy, and utilitarianism or the crass and degenerate imperial moral philosophy. Both of these work in tandem, along with fellow travelers from the rest of the world, conspiring against anything we would consider good. They are propped up as the sole permissible positions, to create a synthesis that suits those who rule and locks out everyone else. It's bullshit, and the best thing for us would be to recognize the false conflict as false, rather than feed into this fake sissy fight between "analytical" and "continental" assholes in the institutions. Analysis is something we do because we have a fucking brain, not an exercise in sophistry or an excuse to find a pretext to be a jackass.

I guess your cope now is that you're going to bash the Jews, because that's the old go-to when you don't have an argument and are afraid to contend with any genuine center of authority or power. That's the funny thing with online anti-Semites - they're pale shadows of the OG Jew-bashers who had no compunction about organizing pogroms, who insist that their gay-ass pseudo-religion wouldn't hurt anyone. It's insufferable and so fucking Germanic. It's enough to make someone wish the Jews would just destroy German philosophy and culture, which was always aristocratic and a bunch of bullshit that insinuated that we have to follow it. Krauts love them some of the old Satanism, that's for sure. It is unfortunate that other Satanists find each other and keep up this charade. More than anything the Jews actually did in the function they serve in the global empire, the Nazi types are butthurt because the Jewish religion has a theory of spiritual rebellion that they simply can't abide, because the retarded Kraut culture only cares about starting bullshit wars and hyping up their typical faggotry. It's never about anything the Jews actually did, because there's a long list of terrible things someone can say about the Jewish race and religion. It's always about this cope to protect the Kraut and Angloid aristocracy, i.e. the people who are the greatest cancers this gay Earth ever knew.


I don't care about jews, you're just bringing up random nonsensical shit about eugenics, muh aristocracy, Satanism, and muh idealism is the reason why I can't have nice stuff. All of what you have said are non-arguements.
>A material view acknowledges that there is a world of which we can speak, whereas "pure idealism" creates a mythical retelling that is one lie after another.
Transcendental Idealism doesn't deny that there is a world out there, just that the world only has relation to a cognizing subject, and furthermore, Transcendental Idealism provides a grounding for mathematics.


>just that the world only has relation to a cognizing subject
So you believe there isn't a whole lot of the world where events happen and no one is around to see it. It's literal fantasy thinking a child can see through. You're making the subject essential to the world, when the world existed long before we did. It's purely a power play of certain conceited people, who identify themselves with the godhead of their choice. None of it is based on anything real, but rather a just-so story. That's Kraut idealism, anyway.

People are very obviously products of conditions which came before them. You'd have to argue that consciousness must exist ex nihilo which is just circular and goofy. It is impossible for a mind to exist without some matter, and if the theory of idealism is simply the extent of what humans can perceive, you make the same error as the positivists. All of this philosophy is designed to forestall the possibility that there can be anything outside of the institutions and outside of us - they are efforts to impose total society by violent means, because such a position is not at all sound by any reason or sense we have of the world.


If a god or idea has no substance, then what is it except an illusion? That's the trick of idealism - to convince people that nothing is something, and something is actually nothing. The concept was invented as reality control in ancient times, because the old way of telling people the rulers were living gods or aligned with the gods directly was no longer effective.


Mathematics begins with a naive set theory. You didn't need a god to tell you how to count things, and it is from the simple proposition that things are countable that you can consider everything else in mathematics.
You won't find mathematics "in nature" as if the rules were written down in nature, but mathematics is derived from the existence of something real that would be countable and comprehensible through the study of those numbers. There wouldn't be the possibility of ideas if there weren't a world already existing to grand them substance, and there wouldn't be mathematics is there was no substance that could be counted or understood as quantitative.
It should be clear that mathematics is ultimately something we understand rather than something that animates the world in of itself. There isn't an algorithm running in the background simulating reality, and if there were such an algorithm, it would only move the question behind a veil. You'll see this charlatan's trick played often with philosophy. I'm pretty sure we had mathematics before transcendental idealists mucked it up, and nothing about that pernicious philosophy is helpful for math. Indeed, the product of German philosophy was to retard understanding of mathematics, because they didn't want their grunt soldiers to think. That was reserved for an aristocracy.

Seriously, the truth of the world is simpler than we're led to believe, but we're not allowed the simple truth because that would be too decent, and we're not allowed to have nice things. Instead of following through with the inquiry implied by scientific thought, there was a concerted effort to command and cajole people through science, to suppress an idea whose time had come and drag us back into the abyss of "struggle for life" that has always been the aristocracy's plan for humanity, where we are consumed by their stupid fetish for war. We could have not done that.


>It's purely a power play of certain conceited people, who identify themselves with the godhead of their choice
You're a retard, I cannot imagine a world where there aren't people who are consciously observing it.
>You'd have to argue that consciousness must exist ex nihilo which is just circular and goofy. I
No I wouldn't, I would say that a causality is a form of the brain's cognitive apparatus, and thus the question of how the world came out, or how the world is, is outside the principle of sufficient reason.
P1: Experience presupposes space and time, we can think away the objects in space but not space itself. We can think away the objects changing in time, but not time itself.
P2: The world cannot be said to exist independent of a subject perceiving it, without a knower and a known, there is no world, hence in deep sleep there is no object of cognition.
P3: Causality is nothing but the unification of space and time as matter, where objects in space can move in time while being stationary in space. Thus the principle of sufficient reason is a heuristic tool, that can only be used to phenomena that is experienced.
What you call substance, is an object persisting in space with the ability to change in time.
>Seriously, the truth of the world is simpler than we're led to believe, but we're not allowed the simple truth because that would be too decent, and we're not allowed to have nice things.
You talk like a Redditor, absolutely no one gives a shit about whatever metaphysical position is right, the average person doesn't give a single shit about this type of stuff you utter retard.
>Materialism considers something such as this to exist intrinsically and absolutely so that it can allow organic nature and eventually the cognitive subject to develop from it and be completely explained by it. – But the truth is that everything objective is as such already conditioned in a variety of ways by the cognitive subject and its
cognitive forms; everything objective
presupposes these forms and disappears completely if the subject is thought away. Materialism is therefore the attempt to explain what is given to us directly by means of what is given indirectly. It regards everything objective, extended and active, everything material, as such a solid foundation for its explanations that reducing everything to this foundation could leave nothing to be desired (even if the reduction were to go so far as action
and reaction).
Arithmetic is only possible because of time, if there was no succession, then there would be means of counting.
>All of this philosophy is designed to forestall the possibility that there can be anything outside of the institutions and outside of us - they are efforts to impose total society by violent means, because such a position is not at all sound by any reason or sense we have of the world.
Yeah sure nigger, because the average person is a fucking solipsist, and because the average normalnigger has an interest in metaphysics.


>It's literal fantasy thinking a child can see through. You're making the subject essential to the world, when the world existed long before we did
I'm still waiting for you to actually provide an argument outside of "muh feelings", all cognition presupposes a knower and a known, a subject and a object, an object (matter) only exists in relation to a subject cognizing it. The world exists, this isn't solipsism, all Idealism says is that consciousness is more fundamental then matter, for matter presupposes consciousness


You're making the mistake of thinking you're going to assert fundamental truths by declaring them so. That is a profoundly stupid approach to any problem, and it's the noob child's version of philosophy.
So where does this consciousness arise, if not in something we consider substantive? I made this point as plain as I could make it - if there is nothing substantive, there is nothing real, and there would be nothing on which a form could be based. There's a version of the Platonic thinking for the losers and someone who really gets what the system was pointing to - that is, that studying the forms was not about saying the world was actually this, but studying the forms was a way to educate people and construct pedagogy, and a rather ingenious construct to impose what is basically reality control or mind control. If you get into the weeds of Plato's thinking this makes more sense, and the ancient Greek philosophers were not stupid men or obsessed with a particular conceit about mind. The same is true of philosophers around the world, who considered similar problems of thought and the nature of the world. There is a version of this taught to those who are out of the know, and it's all a way of hoodwinking those who aren't initiated into the mysteries. By repeating that line, you're just showing that you're a fool, and that's where they want you.

The only real solution is that matter and "idea" are co-equal, but in doing so, "idea" is no longer really a thought fully formed, but a vague spirit which is thought to animate matter and grant to it what we sense as forms or ideas about what it is. It is less that matter inherently possessed fixed forms for us, or that there is some consciousness that must arbitrate what the matter is "supposed" to be. The things in the world simply are at some level, and eventually all of our investigations of a crude sort run into a problem of infinite regress to find the "fundamental cause" or prime mover. This was a problem the Greeks and the Romans acknowledged in a materialistic approach.

Your error, which is a common one, is an attempt to conflate the idealistic, abstract view with materialist science, in an effort to build some religion of science which is in actuality a negation of science. It's common to eugenics because it's a necessary political conceit of theirs, and because that is the ruling idea today, we are made to "debate" this idiotic sophist point ad nauseum. It is a debate a child could see through, except that children are threatened with humiliation for not going along with this sick, Satanic kayfabe. It's moronic and designed to drive people crazy and you should be ashamed for advancing it.

By your logic, you could not exist or have a past; yet for every cognizant entity we know of, we can view a history where at one point this entity did not exist. If there were some universal prime mover without any substance as such, you have to place it "outside of the universe" yet at the same time inside of it. It's a deliberate contradiction and a mind virus, unless you resort to stupidity like panpsychism which is just mystification. "Thought" is not reducible to the entirety of existence - conscious existence only arises in very speficic arrangements, because consciousness is for us something that is done, and that cannot be denied by wordplay. Your thinking is retarded and designed to make people into philosophical zombies. It is autistic and dumb and the root of so much misery in the world.


>We can think away the objects changing in time, but not time itself.
What do you think the principle of relativity is? I'm sure you're going to say it's Jewish physics, but relativity is a principle going back to Antiquity and early modern science. If you suppose time is ordained from above, you imply that time is… what exactly, a dimension, or a series of snapshots? This is an old question that was answered long ago, but as I said, it is revived purely because an anti-scientific "religion of science" which is essentially Satanic in its outlook. That's what guides eugenics.


If your version of idealism can't even explain what the world is at a basic level, and has to resort to a pure charlatan's trick, it's a shitty idealism. Usually religions make some account for the world's existence that does not reduce to cognitive masturbation. That, again, is purely a conceit of "me wantee" and the Satanic ethos that rules today, which insists the past doesn't exist unless it is handed down by a thought leader. Congratulations, you posted a very retarded version of Ingsoc.


I'm pretty sure I didn't need a thought leader to tell me I actually think. I did that on my own power, and so far as I can find any transcendent principle by which the world is organized, it doesn't seem to have any particular regard for humans or any cognitive creature. It wouldn't think in any way like we do, or "think" at all. Cognition and consciousness are things that can easily be explained as the product of material origins - that is, that there are bodies and brains which interface with the world in some way. Consciousness is not merely a thought bereft of meaning, but our feeling and integration of everything about us that persists for as long as we exist. What we understand as rationality is something we hacked in over a long time because we developed symbolic language and had the ability to do this. We've never been very rational creatures, and the efforts to find a rational "purpose to life" failing illustrate this problem.

I can say that it is not a purpose of life to suffer this bullshit. We never needed to do any of the bullshit we were made to do, and it is only for that reason that the world is at all tolerable. If the world were truly evil as certain ideologues believe it is, it would be far worse than it is, and there would be not one moment where the torture relents. It would be a living Hell. That's what eugenicists want to create - a world where everyone is like them, monstrous and devoid of anything but a drive to torture and humiliate, because that's all that is left of them.


Idealism has everything to do with social hierarchy and only complete fools refuse to understand this. There isn't a better mass of people that is easier to lead than the one which focuses on abstract concepts like God, sins, Heaven/Hell, etc. instead of actual things that matter, in other words the real world they live in. Idealism makes sure to drug people and pacify them, to make them docile and obedient. All idealism boils down to "this material world bad, don't care about it!". If you can't see the purpose of why certain groups of people, like bishops, politicians, aristocrats, rich people, people of authority push idealism so much then you are in the dark completely and I pity you.

Schopenhauer never pointed out that boredom is for dumb people, he clearly thought boredom was a universal evil natural to life which appeared when you satisfied all your needs. Read him again.
You are also wrong on his interpretation about art, again I can only recommend re-reading him. For Schopenhauer, there is no solution to suffering, except for complete destruction of the will to life.
And also wrong about NEETing. He CLEARLY says in the World as will etc book four that to NEET is morally wrong because you don't produce anything useful for others while they are giving you stuff.

I'm not a "Nietzschefag", unlike you I don't especially follow any one philosopher. I said that I like Nietzsche better only. I'd consider myself a marxist, if anything. I'm anti-elitism in pretty much everything.
>There is no heaven in Subjective Idealism
But there is a realm of magical ideas where you can retreat to and pretend that it's real while cowering in fear of the big bad material demiurgic world. Also, Schopenhauer considered death and utter oblivion to be desirable. Heaven and Death are the same goals idealists chase after, some are honest about it, others aren't.

I can BTFO idealism in a single or a couple of sentences basically. It's not anything complicated or hard to express either. Idealists posit that sensory experience is either faulty or completely bullshit and that rationality is needed to know the "Truth" in ordinary words. But all idealists still got this conclusion from observing things around them basically. Without seeing, hearing, smelling, touching or tasting things you can't draw any conclusions ever. Rationality or logical thinking in itself isn't capable of anything. First you always need information you can base your bullshit mental gymnastics on. Idealists really feel this superiority or god-complex about themselves and they think they are allowed to decide what is real and what isn't.

Nietzsche was more wizardly and NEET-friendly yes, definitely. That Mainlander quote doesn't prove anything, he ridiculed idealists and moralists for their insistence on virginity as a virtue (simply because they hated life, as pointed out accurately by Freddy), not virginity itself. Nietzsche had no problem with virginity if it was voluntary and life affirming in some way instead of the result of bitterness and resentment morality or hatred of this world, as was the case with idealists who posited virginity as a universal virtue. I myself being a wizard have no problem with people having sex, in fact I'm pro-natalist and support the birth of more people, especially white people. But I don't have a problem with normals having casual sex either. Sexuality is a natural part of life, it just so happened that I'd rather masturbate than have a family myself or have casual sex with others. Still, I know people are different and how important sexuality is for others or to live the family life.
Nietzsche was miserable but I never said you need to be 100% happy in life all the time. Of course some live harder lives than others because of circumstances. Still as I see it
>said life was worth living
>lived life


>said life wasn't worth living unless you completely rejected the will
>he never lived the ascetic life he preached

Nietzsche was more straightforward, honest and coherent. Schopenhauer was a turn-coat and hypocrite, so in other words the usual idealist.

Also, maths and geometry don't prove shit. Subjects that deal with abstract problems on higher levels suddenly prove that abstract things are real and existing…uh no? Maths is suited for idealism because it is about laws and systems but that doesn't prove idealism is right in any way, only that maths and idealism are suited for each other.


>So where does this consciousness arise, if not in something we consider substantive?
Consciousness doesn't arise, it's basically what the law of conservation of energy is. What you refer to by substantive presupposes consciousness. Where does the "idea" refer to? It refers to perception, and perception presupposes space and time, space individuates objects, time determines the state of the objects; multiplicity is presupposes space and time, which is a part of the brain's spatio-temporal scaffolding.
>By your logic, you could not exist or have a past;
Nope, my logic is that consciousness is fundamental, I'm an empirical realist.
In Einstein's 1920s Berlin study, three figures hung on the wall: Michael Faraday, James Clerk Maxwell and Schopenhauer.
The philosopher conspicuously stands apart from two trailblazers in our
understanding of electromagnetism. This prompted Howard to research the source of Einstein's high esteem for Schopenhauer. Starting from
perception, Einstein uses the
PSR to explain change: "variation occurring according to the causal law, always concerns a particular part of space and a particular part of time, simultaneously and in
union."46 He concludes that Einstein's concept of space-time was inspired by the principium individuationis: "Surprising as it may seem, Schopenhauer may well have
been the source for the idea of spatiotemporal separability. Given how fundamental that idea was to Einstein's conception of a field theory, this may explain
Schopenhauer's rather exalted place next to Faraday and Maxwell."47 Of the classic philosophers he read, Einstein was steeped in Schopenhauer.

Nigger relativity has nothing to do with the inability to think away time. Einstein got his entire idea of spatio-temporal seperability from Schopenhauer.
Because religions serve the truth in a dumbed-down way for retards like you.
If you really like this material world so much then go and be a normalnigger and have fun in the real world retard.
>Schopenhauer never pointed out that boredom is for dumb people, he clearly thought boredom was a universal evil natural to life which appeared when you satisfied all your needs.
Sure he did
>The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body: and leisure, that is, the time one has for the free enjoyment of one's consciousness or individuality, is the fruit or produce of the rest of existence, which is in general only labor and effort. But what does most people's leisure yield?—boredom and dullness; except, of course, when it is occupied with sensual pleasure or folly. How little such leisure is worth may be seen in the way in which it is spent: and, as Ariosto observes, how miserable are the idle hours of ignorant men!—ozio lungo d'uomini ignoranti. Ordinary people think merely how they shall spend their time; a man of any talent tries to use it. The reason why people of limited intellect are apt to be bored is that their intellect is absolutely nothing more than the means by which the motive power of the will is put into force: and whenever there is nothing particular to set the will in motion, it rests, and their intellect takes a holiday, because, equally with the will, it requires something external to bring it into play
And of course you're a marxist tranny.
>The brain may be regarded as a kind of parasite of the organism, a pensioner, as it were, who dwells with the body: and leisure, that is, the time one has for the free enjoyment of one's consciousness or individuality, is the fruit or produce of the rest of existence, which is in general only labor and effort. But what does most people's leisure yield?—boredom and dullness; except, of course, when it is occupied with sensual pleasure or folly. How little such leisure is worth may be seen in the way in which it is spent: and, as Ariosto observes, how miserable are the idle hours of ignorant men!—ozio lungo d'uomini ignoranti. Ordinary people think merely how they shall spend their time; a man of any talent tries to use it. The reason why people of limited intellect are apt to be bored is that their intellect is absolutely nothing more than the means by which the motive power of the will is put into force: and whenever there is nothing particular to set the will in motion, it rests, and their intellect takes a holiday, because, equally with the will, it requires something external to bring it into play
Ah, so this is your refutation of idealism? All of those sensations presuppose space, time and causality, for the sight transform the sensation on the retina to intuitions of spatio-temporal objects, hence experience presupposes space and time, thus they are not indepedent of the subject.
>He CLEARLY says in the World as will etc book four that to NEET is morally wrong because you don't produce anything useful for others while they are giving you stuff.
No he doesn't you stupid nigger.
>Sexuality is a natural part of life, it just so happened that I'd rather masturbate than have a family myself or have casual sex with others.
Wizchan 2023


To start with, I went and looked it up just for you, wiz.
>Conversely, by contrast, pure idleness and living by others’ forces with the inheritance of property, without rendering any service, can indeed be viewed as morally wrong, even if it must remain a right in accordance with positive laws.
The World as Will and Presentation, Fourth Book, Paragraph 66

Next time be sure to actually read what you are defending on the Internet. If this isn't a critique of NEET life then I don't know what is. I could also go look for passages that say how boredom is the ultimate and inevitable evil of life but why bother? You already proved that you are either lying, are ignorant or simply don't care enough about our topic of discussion.

>Wizchan 2023

Oh you think we all need to be desperate and sour grapes crabs like you, I presume?
>If you really like this material world so much then go and be a normalnigger and have fun in the real world retard.
I'm already having fun as a wizard, why should I live a life that is completely alien to me?
>All of those sensations presuppose space, time and causality, for the sight transform the sensation on the retina to intuitions of spatio-temporal objects, hence experience presupposes space and time, thus they are not indepedent of the subject.
Wonderful reasoning, except that logical reasoning isn't the same as truth, you idealists all fall for this mistake. Kant or whomever you cited where do yo think they got these ideas from? Or what do they base this on? Suddenly popped up into their head I suppose, kind of a reverse Pallas Athena style? Or could it be they got to all this conclusion based on the information they received about the material world through their 5 senses? Nah, can't be…
>marxist tranny
Good thing the thread is called HIGH QUALITY THREAD, right? Very um, intelligent thoughts and insights you got there, friend.

>Because religions serve the truth in a dumbed-down way for retards like you.

Religions and truth mentioned in a single sentence, you are such a joker, wiz.


>Wonderful reasoning, except that logical reasoning isn't the same as truth, you idealists all fall for this mistake. Kant or whomever you cited where do yo think they got these ideas from? Or what do they base this on? Suddenly popped up into their head I suppose, kind of a reverse Pallas Athena style? Or could it be they got to all this conclusion based on the information they received about the material world through their 5 senses? Nah, can't be…
You’re incredibly ignorant in regard to the basic tenets of Transcendental Idealism, you point out that the information abstracted from is mediated through the sense-organs, if you had bothered to even read Kant, he is investigating the difference between a priori knowledge and a posterior knowledge. The former being knowledge that does not depend on experience, and the latter being knowledge gained in experience, after defining these two different types of knowledges, we come to the question of why arithmetic and geometrical knowledge are synthetic, and also a priori propositions. Subsequently, Kant points out that in order for experience to arise, and in order for these sensations you talk about to arise, space and time are necessary. To put it more simply for you: taste is felt through time, touch is felt through time, and vision is seen through space and time. So the ideas discussed to come from experience, yet in order for experience to arise in the first place, there must be knowledge of cognizing the world; from an evolutionary standpoint, our brain would present the world in a manner that is advantageous to survival. Your argument doesn’t even acknowledge what Transcendental Idealism even is, to summarise all you have said is: “All these ideas come from the senses! Therefore, they come from material objects!”, Kant accepts the first proposition, but investigates the information needed in order for experience itself to arise. I agree with Schopenhauer to an extent, gold-diggers and whores who are Neets are quite literally useless, I implore any NEET to use his time to complete some sort of project instead of just wasting it away. Anyway, if you actually want to even begin to “refute” idealism you would have to refute the following propositions:
I. All of our knowledge begins with experience, yet in order for experience to arise in the first place, our brains need to have knowledge of space and time and unify these two heterogenous forms of sensibility as matter, allowing for change and persistence of mass-energy. Words are mediated through symbols seen by the eyes, and heard by the ears, yet the eyes read the words in space and time, and ears hear the words in time. Thus ideas are antecedent to knowledge of space and time, for the experience of ideas being mediated through the sensory organ is not possible without the inborn knowledge of space and time.
II. Materialism is a form of philosophical monism that states matter is all there is, yet forgets that the world only exists in reference to a cognizing subject; thus, the subject is the boundary of the world, and is not with in it. If there was no one cognizing the world, there would be no world. There is an isomorphism between our private thoughts and the external world, hence the thinking subject is not a part of the world, it is the limit of the world, and the sole presupposition that allows for the possibility of the world’s existence. No subject without an object. When you fall asleep the world disappears as well, can you prove that the world exists independent of you perceiving it? “Nonsense! The world exists, I know it does,” you might say, this is the form of scepticism that Materialism is subject too, it cannot explain consciousness, apart from calling it an emergent property, yet materialism cannot even stand Descartes method of doubt.
III. Thus thoughts, passions, and ideas only exist within a mind that is awake, when the mind finally dies, the world does too, as in deep sleep; the various mountains, blue lakes, and the entire cosmos exists only in the mind of a man who perceives them – thus they have no existence outside of a conscious observer. We could express the concept like this:
SubjectObject, the subject is perceiving an object, materialism focuses on the object, other philosophy’s focus on the subject, yet without a subject, there is no object. When you are in a state of deep sleep, there are no objects, only when you are awake, can you cognize an object as a subject.
IV. Secondary Qualities of matter such as colour, taste, and other sensible qualities can be destroyed yet the primary qualities of extension, solidity, motion, rest, or impenetrability are far harder to perish. The secondary qualities of an object, for example the colour of a car can change, yet the structure of the car, specifically pertaining to its extension and spatial-temporal qualities are different, and in the event of the car being crashed, the total matter, quantified as mass-energy, can never be destroyed. This is because both space, and time are given as infinite magnitudes, hence the infinity of numbers that can be created, and the infinity of space that is imagined, when both are unified as matter, allowing for the persistence of matter despite the inexorable succession of time, the total mass (the quantification of matter) never perishes or is created; this is because space and time being infinite given magnitudes, constitute a priori knowledge, thus creating new energy, would be the equivalence of creating new time. Thus the impossibility of thinking away space, yet the possibility of thinking away the objects that arise in space, and the impossibility of thinking of time, yet the possibility of thinking away the succession of objects in space in relation to time.


>But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself (sensuous impressions giving merely the occasion), an addition which we cannot distinguish from the original element given by sense, till long practice has made us attentive to, and skilful in separating it. It is, therefore, a question which requires close investigation, and not to be answered at first sight, whether there exists a knowledge altogether independent of experience, and even of all sensuous impressions? Knowledge of this kind is called à priori, in contradistinction to empirical knowledge, which has its sources à posteriori, that is, in experience.
>1. Space is not a conception which has been derived from outward experiences. For, in order that certain sensations may relate to something without me (that is, to something which occupies a different part of space from that in which I am); in like manner, in order that I may represent them not merely as without, of, and near to each other, but also in separate places, the representation of space must already exist as a foundation. Consequently, the representation of space cannot be borrowed from the relations of external phenomena through experience; but, on the contrary, this external experience is itself only possible through the said antecedent representation.
>2. Space then is a necessary representation à priori, which serves for the foundation of all external intuitions. We never can imagine or make a representation to ourselves of the non-existence of space, though we may easily enough think that no objects are found in it. It must, therefore, be considered as the condition of the possibility of phenomena, and by no means as a determination dependent on them, and is a representation à priori, which necessarily supplies the basis for external phenomena.
>3. Space is no discursive, or as we say, general conception of the relations of things, but a pure intuition. For, in the first place, we can only represent to ourselves one space, and, when we talk of divers spaces, we mean only parts of one and the same space. Moreover, these parts cannot antecede this one all-embracing space, as the component parts from which the aggregate can be made up, but can be cogitated only as existing in it.


File: 1677182730670.jpg (80.82 KB, 850x400, 17:8, 1674653133809308.jpg) ImgOps iqdb


And that is why Schrodinger couldn't figure out if the cat was dead or alive, even though there is an answer and the thought experiment is silly if you think about it for five minutes. It is possible to make a very elaborate formal theory that doesn't comport with any sense we would have about the world. Shit like this is how popular science became really retarded and hobbled understanding.

The statement "consciousness is fundamental" is a purely political conceit, again disproven by a child any time he goes to sleep. You can only support such a claim because of some ideological desire to assert it is so. I'm going to keep recapitulating this, because people like you don't have an answer and insist on making conscious experience mystical or essential for purely selfish and stupid reasons. Consciousness' origin is not mystical at all. If it were mystical, then why is so much effort spent on trying to cajole conscious actors to act against their interests? Why would someone create a pseudoscience if consciousness were truly paramount, unless they envisioned the world as a contest of endless struggle for no purpose? That's at the heart of Kraut philosophy, and it's an ideology designed to promote warmongering and to keep the grunts just smart enough to kill stuff, but not question their superiors. The logical proof is something you would understand if you think about what you are for any length of time, or try to will yourself to think about an impossible thing. If "consciousness is supreme" then reality control should be trivial. It's the reason why Germans keep trying the same failed ideas ad nauseum and don't seem to get that their ideas lost. The whole thing is an ego trip designed to make the country full of insufferable assholes, but they've always been rooted out by superior civilizations who actually think. They pay tribute to the Empire just like everyone else and this is their cope to act like they aren't a fucking colony.

Mind, I'm not directly attacking Schopenhauer. I'm attacking you, and you keep retreating to the source and recapitulating it instead of defending your argument through anything sensical. Every independent judgement you have made has been to run to daddy to tell you what to think. You can't stand on your own and refuse to engage with even the most basic sense of the topic, when you make these grand statements about consciousness. You shouldn't have to say this guru told you what to think to defend your claim, and then do the gish gallop / Molymeme strat where you just say "where are the proofs" until your opponent gives up. Can you disprove the claim that consciousness is just something we do without going to the source telling you what to think? If you can think for yourself, you should be able to defend the grand claim that consciousness, which is a rather minor event in the grand scheme of existence, is foundational to the actual world. Consciousness is nothing more than our means to engage with the world as living organisms, and it is not even the only one. We engage in many behaviors that aren't fully conscious or willful yet have a definite effect on the world, and we are affected by the outside world. Proof of this is that if you don't breathe, you die, and consciousness ceases. This is something the Greeks and Romans were aware of, even if they didn't understand the exact function of the brain or body.

I haven't gone to the source to tell me what to think. I could cite existing research into psychology, cognition, and all the evaluations attained by communicating with other people, that confirm my understanding of consciousness. I spent a lot of time thinking about how I think. All that introspection and those tendencies in me ought to be worth something, but people like you revert back to pure, literal autism.


>And that is why Schrodinger couldn't figure out if the cat was dead or alive, even though there is an answer and the thought experiment is silly if you think about it for five minutes
Schrodinger came up with said thought experiment to discredit quantum mechanics, tard.


Yay someone who can think. I appreciate your contribution to the thread.
If I can take the actual idealist position, what the Germans call idealism is really a bunch of nonsensical horseshit. If I am going to cite a source, I'd go to David Hume, as he is pretty good at cutting through bullshit.

Most people who follow religion for real are able to defend their religion with argumentation. Religion proper has less to do with having the right ideas and more to do with practice, ritual, and a thinking regarding society and what is effectively the state. It's only Christianity that has a particular obsession with orthodoxy, and this orthodoxy was always maintained on the grounds that the Christian approach to the world was for its time rational enough. It is unlikely modern science exists if it weren't for the Christian view of the world, at least not in the form that it took. The way religion is reduced to these staccato talking points is a deliberate degeneration of what religion originally referred to. Even the Satan-worship of the Babylonians and Egyptians suggested a theory of the world for its time, and these guys literally worshipped the primordial light and believed time to be cyclical. The stuff calling itself new idealism is just nonsense recapitulated to feed into failure. It's not even idealism, so much as it is a mind virus. The proper vehicle for idealism is not philosophy or rationality but religion, and typically the idealist philosophers considered their work to work and their concept of science to work alongside religion rather than against it. The "science vs. religion" infantilization is largely a product of eugenics and the death cult around it. It has always been understood that if you want to deal with the actual world we live in, you would adopt at first a materialistic view, with the knowledge that materialism cannot give you any forms to answer the question for you. Empiricism requires skepticism, and this is something exploited by the dishonest who want to shut down any unapproved inquiry into the world. By "the world", I refer to literally everything, so this would be inclusive of any "foundational idea", like the claim that consciousness is something inherent to the universe. That claim, understood materialistically, is tantamount to panpsychism or the belief that the world is animated by spiritual hobgoblins that are unknowable. These are the things done to rescue German idealism, which should have been rejected on sight but sadly has been allowed to insinuate itself for far too long. The reason it was adopted was precisely because it kept people stupid, rather than any insight it offered.

I really think looking inward to find all your answers is pure navel gazing. Ultimately, we have to reconcile with the world, and we ourselves are of the world. The truth has always been in the world, and we are just the fools who say the words and write them down. The world doesn't just tell us things, but the world is not a liar. Humans are liars and always have been, and it's one of the few things humans are really good at doing. Humans aren't particularly smart and do all sorts of stupid maladaptive shit, but we know how to bullshit, and we are reasonably smart when it comes to reverse-engineering. You have to make people retarded on purpose to truly eliminate the human talent for reverse-engineering, but human propensity for lying is a great art. It is not surprising that most of the occult knowledge is how to lie more effectively than the other liars, and impose your lies on the minds of others whether they want it or not.


File: 1677185709624.pdf (2.3 MB, making-sense-of-quantum-me….pdf)

Yes, I am aware of Schrodinger's point, but the question "is the cat dead or alive" is not a useful refutation of quantum mechanics. There is no reason WE would know if the cat is dead or alive, but it doesn't say anything about the world. It says something about our theories of it, and there are solutions to this problem that aren't totally stupid thought exercises.

Mind, I think QM is a wrong theory, but not for the reasons that are commonly cited, and I only have a hunch because I'm not a physics nerd. I do think a lot of our understanding of microscopic physics is flawed, and certainly the version presented to the masses is some pure bullshit. If you talk to critics, the Standard Model is on shaky ground and always was, being something that was decided by committee and by those who dole out grant money.


File: 1677185919609.pdf (8.3 MB, Von_Bertalanffy_Ludwig_Gen….pdf)

My theory, and this is a crude one, is that we are in error when we try to arrest a thing in nature, and we have to compensate for this with all measurements. That's what we do to arrest any idea of the world and place it in a model - we rule out what is called in logic the "excluded middle", even though we could in theory break down causes and effects ad infinitum, and have to do this in order to model motion in a meaningful way. We don't have a language for "transitory object" without arresting the motion is some way we have defined, too.

Gonna add a couple other interesting reads that don't necessarily support my point but are relevant to the matter at hand.


>"consciousness is supreme" then reality control should be trivial.
You're well and truly retarded, I don't have any interest in politics, I'm not german either.
>You can't stand on your own and refuse to engage with even the most basic sense of the topic, when you make these grand statements about consciousness.
I explained my position, consciousness is ontologically prior to any conception of matter, and is the logical presupposition of every experience.
>Can you disprove the claim that consciousness is just something we do without going to the source telling you what to think?
I pondered the questions on my own for a very long time, and then I went and studied various philosophers. I can disprove your claim quite easily.
Proposition 1: Disprove the claim that consciousness is just something we do
Why do we require proof? It is a fundamental axiom of our mind's cognitive apparatus, this is called the principle of sufficient reason, you have presupposed it by requiring proof. Now for any proposition to be true, there must be a sufficient ground for the predicate true to be attributed to the proposition; consequently, my assertion that consciousness is ontologically prior to matter is proved by the following:
1) That space and time are necessary conditions for experience to arise
Without knowledge of space and time, no experience is possible.
Now until you prove that the ground which I have given as wrong, and prove somehow, that you are not perceiving the text I write in space, and that you're response is being posted in time. Your pathological hatred of Idealism is indicative of how pernicious Marxism is for the mind, the fact that you're incapable of realising that materialism is the status quo, and that you propose that Idealism, which is scarcely discussed outside of academic circles somehow is the reason for whatever political enigma you hate is so absurd that I cannot help myself from thinking that you are either mad or are very adept at making me confused.
You're neurotic hatred of Idealism is pretty funny though.
>The proper vehicle for idealism is not philosophy or rationality but religion, and typically the idealist philosophers considered their work to work and their concept of science to work alongside religion rather than against it.
Schopenhauer was the most pronounced atheist, Hume's skepticism was warded off by showing the existence of a priori knowledge, and the necessity of brain's function of transforming the sensation of light impinging the retina into an intuition of a spatio-temporal object. Furthermore, causality is the unification of space and time as matter, allowing for the quantification of matter (mass-energy) to be indestructible, as both space and time are given as infinite magnitudes.


File: 1677187141650.jpg (27.09 KB, 250x244, 125:122, 164 - YJlzxMA.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

I doubt that any so-called "materialist" will actually answer the following question:
If there is a world independent of a perceiving and knowing subject, prove it.
Prove that there are beings who existed before your birth, and who will exist after your death. Logically you cannot prove that anyone is conscious without having to infer that another person is conscious.
>The statement "consciousness is fundamental" is a purely political conceit, again disproven by a child any time he goes to sleep.
Being asleep doesn't mean that one is not conscious, just that there is no object to cognize thus there is only a subject, and hence nothing.
>If it were mystical, then why is so much effort spent on trying to cajole conscious actors to act against their interests?
No one does actually spends much time at all, this is philosophy we are talking about, and barely anyone has an interest in this. You're either schizophrenic or genuinely mentally ill, to actually believe that there is some sort of Idealist conspiracy against the world.
>If "consciousness is supreme" then reality control should be trivial.
I said conscious cognizes the world according to the rules of space, time and causality, there are weird incidents of paranormal phenomena, but I never stated that I can just distort the laws of physics.
> Empiricism requires skepticism, and this is something exploited by the dishonest who want to shut down any unapproved inquiry into the world.
You can be skeptical against Idealism, but if your arguements are stupid, then it isn't a grand conspiracy pertaining to eugenics, but is actually the result of your own stupidity.


I remember growing up, and recall vaguely the years where my sense of self had yet to fully form. I observe the same from other people who have experienced the world. Investigating myself requires me to analyze what I am, and not being retarded, I do this and find that "I" don't exist as some absolute of the universe. Not only do I recall a time where I didn't exist as I do, but I can expect that I will fall asleep, and consciousness shifts into a state of rest. Similar shifts in state of mind occur throughout the day and throughout my life. The same can be observed in other people. I interface with a world, and came from a mother and father. This union would not be possible if my consciousness were required, and similarly my parents would not be born if similar unions did not happen, ad infinitum until there are ancestors who did not possess anything like our sense of self. The development of the body starts as a mass of flesh that does not "think" in any appreciable way, and we can judge when processes we understand as the first conscious experience, or first thought, emerge in the offspring. Consciousness is a particular type of action people do, and so this is a trivial proof.

There is no need for a "divine consciousness" to organize this process, nor does it make sense to assume that such a consciousness would exist in any way like ours. Human consciousness is explicable as the action and reaction to the world, so even if we were to suppose a divine "mind", it would not be constituted as anything comparable to our own. Using our own conscious experience to project about a potential godhead is foolish. We observe different conceits of consciousness among humans, because there is not one universal "type" or substance of consciousness. Consciousness is purely action, rather than "being". That "being" is the integration of these actions into what we consider a self. You won't find that "person" by any scientific instrument, as if the soul were something measurable. The origin of ideas from matter, without reference to any conscious will animating it, is not controversial. If you understood philosophy at all, idealism doesn't say anything about the universe "fundamentally". That is properly the domain of metaphysics, and you can have a materialist metaphysics, or an idealist view that doesn't regard metaphysics as meaningful. So-called Objectivism is an idealism that doesn't have any genuine metaphysics, and look at what a piece of retarded shit that is. Of course, the Randroids can only persist because they are hangers-on with the eugenic creed. It's a deliberate retardation and mind virus.

Your thinking is autistic, Satanic, and particular to our time. It's not even idealism. It's just retarded, self-indulgent faggotry, and it was repudiated very early in the investigation of human thought and the soul. This is an old trap, a lie told to fools to convince them that they have accessed the super secret cheat code. Scientology does something like this and makes it an absolute, and the purveyors of the religion know they're lying. It's an essentially Satanic mindset, and the Scientologists really don't deny their Satanic origins. Hubbard was a Satanist and involved in those circles. If you want to look further into the occult world, you can, and it confirms much of what I've said here, and those familiar with the history of religion and philosophy can tell you this easily. You're just a self-indulgent manchild who chose to wank and cope rather than answer the question. Eventually, this question will be answered. No man can go on living the lie you do without degrading himself, even if the realization comes at the very end. I've suffered from this autistic thinking and know the disease very well, and I had to train myself to overcome it, to recognize it as something that was imposed on me by a history of human cruelty and those who revel in deception. You're retreating to copes, appeal to authority, and silly autistic arguments where you boldly assert what consciousness is. There has been a long inquiry on the nature of consciousness, and everyone knows to ignore the retards who mystify it, if they wish to approach consciousness reasonably.

If you're going to tell me to doubt my own experience, and that which has been related to me by non-retards from various walks of life, you're barking up the wrong tree and just prove my point that this is an ideology of cajolers who don't want to think for even a moment. This is a rightist trope - they brag about their ignorance. It's literally "Ignorance is Strength" Ingsoc-tier horseshit. The people who say shit like you do are either trained liars or complete fools. Since I've seen people recover from this type of autistic thinking, and saw hints of it in myself, I know the pattern, and it is a highly particular one. Reasonable people do not conform to a singular type, but those who "seek the primordial light" - the most pernicious variant of Satanic or Luciferian thought going today - are nearly uniform. This makes the thought-form politically valuable, if the goal is to degenerate as quickly as possible the native faculties of people and reduce them to the lowest possible state. It is an ideology compatible with depopulation and the reduction of thought to nothing more than an algorithm, that is supplied by a thought leader to the subject without any barrier of resistance.

I can tell you about schizophrenia and brain rot. It's not a pleasant experience. I'm not schizo, if that's your new line of attack - again, you're going for the appeal to institutional authority which you don't possess. Thinking like yours would be seen at the least as the sign of an incredulous fool who can be made to believe anything, who obsessively looks for the fad to fill some void in his life or who relies entirely on a cult of smug superiority. Since you clearly are not superior and even I can tell this, you're one of those idiots who cucks himself. It's pure self-abasement.

I doubt you even know what Marxism is, since what I'm writing is very much not a Marxist conception of consciousness, and Marx did not have a monopoly on materialism. It's typical faggot cope from people who scream like retards when they hear a trigger word. Marx tbh isn't as interesting as you think, and is wildly misinterpreted by charlatans who either think he's the great guru or the great Satan, when he's really just a guy and wasn't the center of attention during his lifetime. The only people who obsess this much over Marx are hardcore cultists and fascists, which are basically the same thing. Ordinary communist politicians are not screaming retards. Most people in politics have enough sense to know ideology is for the slaves. It just so happens that Nazism is premised on habitual lying, like all eugenics is, and you're an idiot if you think you're on their team. But, you're too brain rotted to know that the origin of your belief, which is a new belief, was programmed into you by thought leaders who constructed a failed system tailored to people like you - you know, cowards. When attacked, you claim the other person adheres to some alien theory that you're primed to attack on sight. Strangely enough, this is a consequence that Marx was aware of as a possibility. Marx was the first to really expound on ideology, and you are unwittingly following the behaviors Marx would expect of you. You're almost a strawman example of his claims about ideology.


>Why do we require proof?
We are speaking of consciousness as a scientific topic, not consciousness as your personal feelings. If you can demonstrate that what we experience as consciousness is in fact malleable, it refutes "fundamental consciousness" as something that exists absent a cause, or consciousness as the prime mover - or at least, any consciousness that is similar to our own, which we know to be malleable through trivial experience of life.
If your consciousness is truly inviolable, you wouldn't be so easy to trigger, and you would be able to formulate actual responses instead of boilerplate repostings of the same idea. Don't go to other philosophers - you immediately do the thing I told you not to do, because it's instinctive in you and you lack any original ideas or native sense.

"Knowledge" is a local event, rather than something transcendent. There is not "knowledge" floating around freely in the universe in pure form. There is information and a world from which we gather it for our purposes. Space and time, or what we understand as such, are things that didn't require someone to "think" they exist. From the start, you can only prove that there is a world. You can't prove anything axiomatically about consciousness meaning anything to account for origins. The non-existence of a conscious entity didn't stop the Earth from forming long before life did, unless you insert a divine consciousness, which as mentioned would not be anything like our concept of consciousness if it does exist.
We are speaking here of human consciousness, because that is the most obvious example we can investigate. We don't have a walkie talkie to speak to God or the world spirit direct and ask Him/It what the deal is.
That's why I said, this argument devolves into panpsychism and claims about "mind" being basically a material substance but not. It's internally contradictory and needs to be in order to support itself. A materialist view has no such difficulty - ideas in a material view are merely the representation of some underlying arrangement of matter, and only the "ideas" that we conceive at that. Our ideas of a thing do not conform wholly to the actual object, and certainly don't conform to the reduced token of an object we convey in language. The word "dog" does not have a singular axiomatic definition, where any slight variation in the object is a different type of object. We understand dogs by distinguishing characteristics, rather than a fixed type in the universe, and so we can imagine many variants of dogs that conform to our understanding of the species. It is this failure of idealism which leads to the absurd claim that "A is not A" - i.e., anything can be anything with enough dialectical woo woo, yet everything is perfectly rational in a way which conforms to our thought and not to the actual world. It is far more likely that our understanding in logic is for us, rather than something "fundamental" to the universe. There's no metaphysical hobgoblin running a simulation of the universe on a computer to move things. Real, physical objects are inherently "moving" objects, and have to be in order for us to interact with them in the way we expect. Motion does not need to explained by any dialectical magic, but it is instead a property of things we encounter every day. It really is that simple. You could imagine a world of non-moving things or transcendent things, but they are not comparable to the things we interface with every day, and you wouldn't use analogies with ordinary things to describe the transcendent. What a "divine mind" thinks to move the world, if such a thing is accepted, has nothing to do with our conceits about ourselves. It is entirely possible to believe there is a God but that humans are just evolutionary flotsam of no particular importance. The original godhead was more a prime mover or architect like the Demiurge - this is what Plato claimed directly - and the godhead came to acquire political meaning over time, especially as the theory of Judaism was imported into Christianity, then to Islam, and the former was a response to the cult worship of the Middle East.

Your claims about consciousness themselves came from somewhere, some history of thought in us that allowed us to possess a language to conceive of the problem. If consciousness were an absolute, it would be far more uniform.

For my view to make sense, you have to abandon the human subject as the start of your inquiry, which is the way people used to think about this before humanism was converted into this "religion of science" eugenics bullshit. Investigating the human subject is useful for understanding ourselves, society, and the way we think, but it doesn't tell us anything about metaphysics or the universe at a basic level. Human consciousness implies there are humans and a concept of what humans are, that could have only arisen from conditions where at some point there were not "humans" as such. Humanism as a concept didn't appear fully formed one day, but emerged in stages of development as spiritual thought responded to the world and formulated new understandings based on experience. Today's "humanism" is a corruption of the older concept, which was primarily spiritual. Your "humanism" is just the ideology of eugenics which claims that only an elite are truly human, and you can't even bring yourself to be part of the human family. I don't have any such difficulty - if I'm not human, it's not a big deal to my fundamental existence. I like to think I am still human, despite everything, and I can't deny I'm in a human society whether I want to be or not.


Will add that I'm not really "skeptical against idealism". I'm skeptical of obvious retardation, but I can accept an idealist view of the world. My original point is that looking for ideas as "fundamental nature" is missing the point tragically. As I said, that is a metaphysical question, which can be understood idealistically or materialistically. The metaphysical view has to acknowledge both matter and "idea" in some way in order for us to make sense of the world. The two are not really diametrically opposed, unless you're an idiot. "Consciousness" though does not have to be essential to the universe. Consciousness is a different proposition than the existence of ideas or forms. It is a highly specific proposition, and as mentioned, it is easy to see from experience and some basic sense that there is a world outside of anything conscious. There is much of the world we individually don't see, and much of the world that no human ever sees or knows. Again, if you speak of a "divine consciousness", you are either speaking of nonsense or something very different from how we think. We know a lot about how we think, and always have possessed a fairly large body of knowledge regarding this. We don't know the first thing about any god that might exist, if we are to suggest that a god exists just like you or I do. It is quite clear that gods were intended as metaphors or vague analogies, because they conveyed a lot of information in compact forms that were readily understood as stories. Even if the metaphor is not quite something purely for us - if we are to attribute to God certain qualities we regard as something more - we learn very early that the gods are not literal bearded men throwing thunderbolts and suspending the world. This is basic if you are ever introduced to any religion formally. The lie version is for outsiders who are not initiated into the religion, as a way of keeping outsiders away from the religion's internal practices or esoteric section (and Christianity has a really big esoteric sector, bigger than any other religion).


>Proof of this is that if you don't breathe, you die, and consciousness ceases
lmao, source?


Given the stupidity ITT I have to wonder if you actually believe that is an own.


uh yeah, pointing out how a braindead materialist takes his beliefs on what happens after death as fact and citing them as proof is pretty funny.


Death is an eternal sleep, my friend. That's all it really is. You know why this talking point of wank is promoted? It's so the serfs will fear death and torture, which the nobles and priests hold a monopoly on. Certainly I don't advocate dying, and it is the dying that is the painful and unpleasant part. But - and I've seen people die - the Hell is temporary, unless someone is driven mad and becomes obsessed with the mind poison. That's the goal of the hardcore cults - to get people in a state of absolute terror as they die, so it can be maximized. That's the cycle they instill in the lowest of us to make us fearful in life, so that torture can be attained at the lowest possible cost.

I don't advocate for death and certainly won't claim it is painless or virtuous, but at some point, you're going to have to reconcile with the reality that consciousness is a temporary thing. We have evidence of that every day, for the reasons I mention. What is constant is that there is a world, and that is the only constant. The world would encompass any god or metaphysics as well, and so inventing something in the sky as a cope is a stupid fool's understanding of religion. Religion did not originate as a cope though, contrary to the belief of the "religion of science" retards. Religion came about because it offered explanations of many things, most importantly a concept of society and the state. The earliest concepts of the state are religious ones rather than philosophical ones, or they are simply the personal rule of someone or some clan over another. (I keep forgetting that people like you are always about "muh tribe", but tribes were not polities in the sense that a state is, and tribes were certainly not organized like very small and primitive bureaucratic states with the same pretenses!) It wasn't necessary to invent religion to make a cope about death - humans did that without any organized religion, and could make stories for themselves about the nature of death. You find some interesting customs and attitudes regarding death among primitive people, even.

If I did want to live forever, I wouldn't do it by some autistic reasoning. That would be worse than death for me. I can tell because I am well acquainted with the mindset of those who are obsessive-compulsive about the cult of life and the cult of a total society, where "life" is inescapable and alien to them, yet it it everything. It's another one of those contradictions that shouldn't be a contradiction if we think about these things for five minutes, but certain people insist on their stupidity.

You can go talk to people who have been through near death experiences - stories have been shared for a long time. People don't have a uniform experience of dying or a uniform attitude towards death, unless someone wants to impose samefaggotry. There have been plenty who speculate about what happens to conscious experience after death, but as far as any ongoing material process, that comes to an end. I'd rather trust those who have been there than people who are trained to lie about basic shit, and then come to my own conclusions based on everything I know and what I can learn from the world.

Really though, the reality of sleeping and the malleability of conscious experience for us should at least make the argument of human centrality meaningless. I can masturbate all day and claim I'm a sex god but reality would remind me that it's a lie, and I'm only hurting myself if I actually believe that.


k, but you dont know what happens after death


Nothing happens as far as the world is concerned. What I perceive is always informed by the world, whether I want it to be or not. I can choose to some extent how I die or face death when it comes, and that is more important than life for its own sake. I could have life endure at a level that is miserable but not something I would treasure, and I have lived through a lot of unnecessary misery without giving up on the world. I gave up on humanity, or rather, the false hope I had that humanity could be worth something was broken and I wish I didn't let others convince me that I was the asshole. The world is more than humanity and more than any conceit that is held. I have always despised "total society", or the belief that society and the dictates of people are truly inescapable. The consequences of the past will never go away - they made sure of that - but the rulers don't have the power to change reality. That's what they tried with me in a horrible way that no one should live through, and I'm not the only one who has been mindfucked and ruined for the sake of bullshit. Recognizing their tactics for what they are was the first step to recovery, and I spent my adult life undoing all the shit that the school system drilled into me as best as I can. It's bullshit neither I nor my family should have had to go through, and no one gained anything from it. It was all to feed a bunch of sadists who literally don't or can't think about what they do, beyond pushing the "win button" of making others suffer, that has become the dominant moral idea in America. That's the way we set for ourselves. I'm driven by a personal disgust and a firm belief that what is done to me, and is done to the world and society, is an abomination and should never have been allowed to insinuate in the way it has. So, I'm very aware of the Satanic cycle and hate those who enable it. I especially hate faggots who enable the Satanic cycle for the most cowardly excuses they can find, and they can't even claim they benefit in any way from it. They do it because they literally don't know anything else and think this is all there is.


This understanding is how btw we think of the afterlife as the result of good deeds or having faith or whatever in life, even though it seems odd that a god would care about that. If you understand religion not as literal commands alien to you but something you interpret with our own sense - and every worthwhile religion expects this of its adherents, as it recognizes the believer as the germ by which religion can spread - you would see what a lot of priests would tell you, that Heaven and Hell (so far as their religion actually speaks of the concepts) are states of mind, or indicators of the religion's long-term mission. Spoiler alert: if you read Plato's Republic, you can see hints of it in the description of the Kingdom of Heaven, where the ideal city is reframed as the City of God and a world where men are like angels, or alternatively, the imagined world where the righteous Guardians have told everyone what to think and everyone obeys just like "God" intended. This is strange because the content of religion points in multiple directions, but the orientation of the Church and the practical actions of the religion organized or otherwise give away that it was a way of repackaging Greco-Roman philosophy as an organized religion, since pagan philosophy had little sway over many in the Roman Empire by that time. It was constructed almost as a parody of Jewish thinking, which is a charge scholars of Islam level against the Christian religion. Islam claims that Jesus was an actual person, but all the stuff about him being divine was a corruption of the original anti-Roman cult. I read a pretty interesting summary of the Caesar's Messiah theory from a Muslim guy on Twitter who gets into a lot of the crank stuff and he explained the reasoning in a way that made a lot of sense.


This thread is full of schizophrenic ramblings and most of those are from anti-eugenic schizo who writes nonsense paragraphs non-stop claims leftist lies and says everything is satanic. After reading this thread I just want to murder the morons who writes this bullshit.


File: 1677243351614.jpeg (111.82 KB, 2000x1753, 2000:1753, 147143_d1fd44b6-1dcd-4634….jpeg) ImgOps iqdb

I don't think you really understood what I said, I don't think consciousness is something mystical, I think it is more fundamental then matter. But what I really mean by consciousness being more fundamental then matter, is actually the unconscious functions, for example the the stimuli of light on the retina being passed on through the optical nerve to the brain's visual cortex, which is something unconscious and autonomous rather then introspective and reflective which is metacognitive. Matter which is quantified as energy, with the energy being composed of fundamental forces and particles which are theoretical models used to explain the behaviour of matter are essentially occult qualities. No one can explain why the world exists because the way we reason using cause and effect, and seeking out a sufficient reason for any phenomena is just the way the brain functions, the occult qualities of gravity and other stuff are as inexplicable as the existence of unconscious forces that are presupposed by physics. In the example of the objects being constantly in motion in space, which is something I agree with, is because space and time are unified as matter, both of the latter being given as infinite, thus the infinity of energy and the inability to create new energy is equivalent to the ability to create new time; I am against people who think consciousness is something mystical, to me mysticism is just the irrationality of things such as synchronicity or acausal events being outside of the scope of reason. I agree with the your explanation of the word "dog", of course dogs are re-representations of experential states, and nothing else - I am also not a Hegelian who talks about presuppositionless logic, I am just a seeker of the truth who finds the concept of a world outside of the cognizing subject to pure nothingness rather then a material world existing indepedently, this makes far more sense to me then materialism; materialism is very accurate, my but idealism that explicitly shows that the brain's cognitive apparatus cannot explain everything escapes the dogma of materialistic science which seeks to answer unanswerable questions, hence the materialistic monism's inability to explain what consciousness is; whereas I can say that the consciousness is just the product of cerebral functions allowing metacognitive reflection, thus humans are nothing but transient phenomena of a unconscious force reflecting upon itself. This is just my personal hobby, you can say it's autistic, which is fine, not everyone has to be a normalfag who is more interested in sports or whatever coping mechanism that dulls the mind.I don't believe in God, you're correct to say that death is eternal sleep, just like unconscious states are devoid of metacognitive reflection, death is something far more desirable to being conscious; it's strange that you insinuate that I believe that there is a life after death or even an actual God, I believe that consciousness is a terrifying mistep in evolution and that the freudian death drive is the unconscious realisation of this. I am merely interested in modelling the world more accurately, materialism fails to answer the hard problem of consciousness, there isn't much difference in me saying that meta-consciousness is the product of cerberal phenomena grounded on an unconcsious force and a materialist say meta-consciousness is the emergent property of fundamental forces, except that I say that this force is outside of space and time, and cause and effect, because cause and effect presupposes objects in space moving succesively through the time.
Einstein's theory of relativity and his emphasis on spatio-temporal seperability was because he had read Hume and Schopenhauer, with the latter differentiating the subjective experience of time, in reference to an object's state in time and position in space; furthermore, I'm not interested in discussing conspiracy theories, since consciousness itself is the source of all misery.
(1) ISOLATION. So that we may live without going into a free-fall of trepidation, we isolate the dire facts of being alive by relegating them to a remote compartment of our minds. They are the lunatic family members in the attic whose existence we deny in a conspiracy of silence.
(2) ANCHORING. To stabilize our lives in the tempestuous waters of chaos, we conspire to anchor them in metaphysical and institutional “verities”—God, Morality, Natural Law, Country, Family—that inebriate us with a sense of being official, authentic, and safe in our beds.
(3)DISTRACTION. To keep our minds unreflective of a world of horrors, we distract them with a world of trifling or momentous trash. The most operant method for furthering the conspiracy, it is in continuous employ and demands only that people keep their eyes on the ball—or their television sets, their government’s foreign policy, their science projects, their careers, their place in society or the universe, etc.
(4) SUBLIMATION. That we might annul a paralyzing stage fright at what may happen to even the soundest bodies and minds, we sublimate our fears by making an open display of them.
Yeah I don't know why I even bothered responding to this Schizo who doesn't care about discussing philosophy, but instead just pushing his stupid narrative to explain his neurotic and depressive state, blaming some other grand conspiracy instead of the fact that he himself is miserable due to his own conscious existence.


>anti-eugenic schizo

Kek, this schizo still around? I remember that he would spam five threads rambling about some eugenic conspiracy or some shit, lmao, nigga should seek help.


You are more of a schizo than him probably.


More and more retarded word salads to protect your imaginary castle called idealism in the sky where you can hide away from reality. Kant this, Kant that, nobody cares what Kant thought, just because Kant thought it or wrote it down that doesn't mean it's real, logical or objective truth. Kant received his deductions and opinions on the world by observing it, like everyone else. If someone has no sensory experiences he can't come to any conclusions because no data is available to him. The problem with idealistfags like you is that you think your thoughts or consciousness is more important than anything else. That you are allowed to choose what is real and what isn't. You just can't get over yourself simply. You are a scared child who is afraid of reality so much that you must deny reality even exists.

>gold-diggers and whores who are Neets are quite literally useless, I implore any NEET to use his time to complete some sort of project instead of just wasting it away

Slave tier obsession with usefulness, I see, I see. You aren't only schizophrenic but you are a masochist too.

I'm just bored of all these retards parading around like they are geniuses when they are only sniffing their own assholes and masturbating to Schope or Kant. This bourgeoisie nonsense and degeneracy about "anything can be anything" as you said it I believe already ITT is what is wrecking Western culture. Morons sniffing their own assholes and not fixing things in the real world. And they actually dare to think they are contrarians or original in some way when most of the world's population is enslaved by some kind of idealism.

>If there is a world independent of a perceiving and knowing subject, prove it.
Since most of the universe isn't inhabited and has been that way for the majority of galactic history, yes it doesn't matter what you perceive or not. This is the absolute biggest normalfaggotry, btw: if no one sees something then it doesn't happen or doesn't exist. Pure arrogance and narcissism, attributing yourself to some god who decides what is real and what isn't. If you suffer alone in a cave where no one else perceives you then you don't exist? Childish autism.

>No one does actually spends much time at all, this is philosophy we are talking about, and barely anyone has an interest in this. You're either schizophrenic or genuinely mentally ill, to actually believe that there is some sort of Idealist conspiracy against the world.

The majority of people are idealists because they have been forcefed this shit since childhood. When you think what you believe in is more important than facts then you are an idealist. The elite of the world has always been interested in poising people with idealism because idealism creates a pacified, impotent mass of people who are easily controlled by people who didn't lose their sanity, in other words people who don't focus on hocuspocus mumbojumbo but on actual existing things. You can imagine you are talking with Mickey Mouse, Jesus or that you can decide what is real and what isn't, it's all the same schizophrenia.

But I do know, you get buried or cremated and that's it. What's so hard to get about this?


No, I'm not, I don't go on spamming 10 thread about some schizo conspiracy, that a sign of mental illness, seek help, eugenic schizo.


It's a lost cause with guys like that. They insist that their autism is some sort of gift. I can tell you as someone who did suffer from this autistic thinking, it is not a good thing. It took me a long time to undo the damage that I acquired in childhood. It would have been better if I just didn't have to go through that. There were people trying to tell me some things, but there was an overarching force at work that simply refused, and that is what won out. Everything I went through growing up has become worse, and tactics that were once used against the most retarded and outcast are now used against the general public. I could see this happening in the 1990s, which is why I was flabbergasted that so many normal people would abide it. I didn't understand that normal people do not think like I do, or that they actually thought about society and institutions in the way I did. I believed there was a baseline level of decency people would uphold out of self-interest if nothing else, but they really do not think about that. They really are more like animals, even though their thinking fucks them over. As long as they have someone to kick down, they will never have to think, because it will always be the path of least resistance to find someone to sacrifice. This was understood by some social reformers, that what happens to the lowest class is an indicator of what a society will do to the general population, and rather than learn from that, certain people decided to maximize the torment, with the expectation of making most of humanity as bad off as the lowest class. This is where you get the Confederate revivalist retards, and what they want is far worse than anything the Confederacy stood for which is saying a lot. That's how fascism goes - it always, always gets worse.

Dunno if you agree, but I'm with the guys who said if you exterminate faggots, you'd eliminate fascism. It really is like that.

TBF I believe the problem isn't so much idealism, but this search for gurus that is a very particular pedagogical disease. People do the same thing with Marx and treat his writing like it's the Bible, and then use a literalist interpretation that's as bad as Young Earth Creationist bullshit. Marx himself hated people like that, but the term useful idiot exists for a reason.

I just prefer to look at the actual world instead of conceits about it, because I've seen what the latter does to people. The worst mistake I ever made in my life was doubting my native judgement of things, and letting the wrong people bullbait me. Again, there were people who were trying to genuinely help, but because of the sick ideas that were dominant when I was young and what I grew up around, the Satanic cycle people would win out, and they have creative ways to shit up anything decent. Those people have always lurked in the woodwork, waiting to shit up any country they inhabit.

For what it's worth, I don't think most people are philosophical idealists - or for that matter, anyone is a "natural idealist". People can't be that stupid unless they are specifically trained to be, and this is not an easy process. Most people have a bullshit detector that doesn't allow them to engage in the level of doublethink that certain people want, and those who embrace the lying become terrible and have to invent new copes to maintain their illusion. These people like to portray doublethink as something inherent to nature and a done deed, but this system of mental cheating has always been very expensive and leads to degradation. We could have chosen to just be basically decent to each other, and most people actually would ask if the ruling ideas are worth it. Most people do not benefit in any way from this disease we've been made to suffer, and have to act in spite of the ideas of a few who have been able to insinuate themselves.

Funny thing is that for a long time, people took an interest in knowing about the world, in science, religion, and philosophy. It was a big thing in America that people would argue this or that point in the Bible, and took it seriously. So too did they take seriously the civic religion that came about. What people didn't take an interest in was the aristocratic attitude towards philosophy, because they saw it correctly as fart-sniffing horseshit. The better of the philosophers understood this failure of philosophy and decided to write about actually worthwhile things. The charlatans, of which there are many, reveled in the bullshit. Philosophy died when it became purely about mystic bullshit and lost its explanatory value to anyone who didn't love the smell of farts. There are genuine advances in knowledge, but they aren't made by philosophers or by the formal institutions of science, but are made in secret or by the same forces which have compelled men to create something new to respond to their situation. There are people who absolutely refuse to allow any new idea to exist, because they have constructed a very elaborate total society where all ideas must be controlled, with any dissent co-opted and neutralized.

As for what happens after you die in subjective experience - you can ask people who had near-death experiences or actually went through brain death, because that has happened. You can only navel-gaze so much before you accept that your experience is not the center of the universe, and that whatever happens will happen in one way or another. I used to dread that when we died, we all went insane and we were all doomed to Hell or the eternal recurrence, which amounts to the same thing. The beautiful thing I discovered is that eternal recurrence in an impossibility, a myth created by idiots like Nietzsche as a way to corrode moral sense. When we're dead, we are simply gone. The Hell is what we have to live through as a consequence of the bullshit that is human politics, and the willingness of humans to make each other suffer. That's been a constant, and it is one of the things that people seek to answer, since you learn very early that bullies care about decency 0% of the time and will never, ever repent. They only respect violence and follow like Good Germans, and they live and die by it.


Instead you and your friends here go around spreading ACTUAL schizophrenia-tier nonsense like "things only exist because I perceive them". I'm sorry to ring your bell but thoughts don't influence reality, your thoughts are influenced by reality. So if you get cancer you can't will yourself to be completely cured for example. Or you can't will yourself not to get hungry.

This retarded backward style thinking is how cavemen reason too. "If Jesus said that you must have faith and then can do anything that must be true!!" It doesn't matter how much you pray, meditate or what your opinions about the world are, the universe doesn't care either way. It doesn't depend on you to exist, it existed before you and will continue exist long after you are dust. Your thoughts don't influence shit by themselves. Law of Attraction tards are the best example of how stupid as a philosophic school idealism really is.

>eternal recurrence
I think it may be true but who cares? You won't remember anyway so you won't know for certain. If there is only matter and nothing else, then it's logical to think that the cycle of cause and effect is eternal. It makes sense to me and I don't see a problem with it personally because like I said, you won't remember anything so you will always live your life as if it's your first time.

I'm pretty sure the majority of people who ever lived or live are idealists because this cancer is rooted so very deeply in human culture. If you look at philosophers who lived most of them were idealists, materialists have always been a fringe minority. (People never did like the truth, huh?) Religions, superstitions, even believing in simple meme-like lies - it all has to do with people valuing their own thoughts and feelings more than what is actually real.

>search for gurus

Most people are like that, they crave it so deeply to be spoonfed that it's making any decent person cringe. The majority has a desperate desire for heroes and leaders, for role models and parent figures, for people of authority to govern them. The guys who argue against you or me here are perfect examples of that, all they do is quote X or Y philosopher, taking everything they said for granted. It wasn't just Marx who hated people like that, Nietzsche too wrote down directly that he didn't want mindless followers. It's kind of funny how much common ground Nietzsche and communists/anarchists have, despite their obvious differences.

>but I'm with the guys who said if you exterminate faggots, you'd eliminate fascism

This reminds me of something else actually. How people instantly react with made up insults against ideologies they were led to believe are innately worthless. Like itt one of the idealistfags called me a "marxist tranny". I forgot to tell him how in marxist countries there are/were no lmbtq movements at all and how the whole rainbow and tranny movement originated in the most anti-marxist/capitalist countries. It's so damn funny, because this crazy idealism where "anything can be anything" is the ideology which paved the way toward gays and trannies becoming mainstream and not marxism or anything related to it. When you aren't even sure what is real and what isn't, that's when you start pondering questions like "can males give birth to children?" or "can males be females? or vice versa". Marxist countries never had anything to do with bullshit like this, it's a product of the degenerate fascist/capitalist West.
So yes, faggots and fascists are kind of the same thing on some level.


Seek help, you are losing it


i wouldn't be surprised if all of this was generated by chatgpt or some other AI by a guy with 2 VPNs pretending to be 2 different people


The people who are all about "faith alone will save you" and other such neologisms are not practicing Christianity. They're practicing some impostor. The Christians saw their views not as "sky man say obey", but as a philosophy just like any other, that was exclusive with philosophy. It really goes downhill with Martin Luther, but Luther is just arguing against things that had long been dogma in the Church. Mostly though, Luther just hated the Jews more than the Catholics did, which was already a pretty furious hatred. Stuff like the Law of Attraction - which is a variant of the Religious Right's televangelism - would have been understood as a Satanic thought system, and it was that. There were people wondering what the hell happened to their church, and why the young pastors went off the deep end and told them the Bushes were anointed by God.
Mind, I'm not a Christian, and I see what is happening with Christianity as something that was latent in its construction. It was all a lie from the start, and it was particularly focused on orthodoxy, whereas most religions don't give a shit about that in practice. This inversion, where most religions are concerned with practice, is one of the fatal weaknesses of Christianity.

>eternal recurrence

You'd have to assume time is cyclical and conforms to a conceit of absolute historical progress, when the world does not actually do that. If there is another material world created after this one is done, it would be a different world entirely. It is also doubtful if there ever will be an end, and a "beginning" may be impossible to understand from our perspective. There is just the world. If you want to go to the "afterlife" you can do that just by disconnecting from perception of this world and imagining a different world, a world where we didn't have to do this. Tada, you're in paradise. The consequence of doing this is that once you go down that road, there really is no going back. You can't really connect to a society that is premised on following the primordial light, i.e. Luciferianism or Satanism. Since I already took that pill, I accepted that the point of going to the other "life" is to find something that I'm not going to find in this society or right in front of me, and bring it back, in some hopes that the world will retain some sanity and we can have nice things again. I doubt this is possible, because eugenics has taken over everything and it has only started to impose its grand social vision.

Philosophers were idealists because they were tasked with upholding the state and its ruling ideas. There were philosophers who were skeptical about this, and philosophers who qualified what you could do with ruling ideas. There's a whole materialist tradition among the Greeks, and if you actually read Plato, he doesn't actually believe the universe is comprised of forms in a literal sense. They tell people to ignore that part because it gives away the secret of his system and what it was really pointing to - that Plato's Cave is a mind control facility, basically.
Most people, and most people who think, have been natural materialists, because they are concerned with the actual world rather than their conceits about it. People are forced to adopt idealism to answer certain questions about society and their interaction with the state and its agents, because fear of other people is the prime motivator in our lives. We wouldn't be who we are if we lived in the world where humans weren't immensely shitty to each other. Because the things which fuck us over are the ideas of certain assholes, we tend to think in terms of those ideas and how to cope with them, rather than the thing we were originally interested in, when it comes to our interactions with others and our sense of self. When push comes to shove, though, everyone becomes a materialist when true death is on the line, and all this posturing and faggotry goes to the wayside very quickly. It really is a joke that we've been made to argue over obvious lies, but certain assholes realized they could just lie as much as possible to shut down any genuine conversation and thus suppress dissent against the rulers. It wasn't possible until the 20th century, but the Nazis were a test case to see if it could be done. A century later, it rolls out to the whole world, and everything gets Nazified and Krautified.

I do think most people are weak at heart and aren't anywhere near good, and I did overestimate the level of self-interest and fidelity to reality in people, but I don't think people are naturally given over to self-abasement and guru-seeking. That has to be socially engineered. Mostly, people are fearful of other humans for very good reasons, and we live in a society where most people are not allowed to fight for themselves. Any sign of independence from the ruling ideas is viciously attacked, until the behavior of people is modified to allow them "freedom", as a treat. The moment certain lines are transgressed - even if the line drawn is this ridiculous death cult of eugenics - is the moment all your freedom and protection in society is taken away. For most people, submission isn't an option, and they learn that the hard way if they fall into the usual traps. If people could get along by submitting, and the rulers were benevolent, most people probably would submit, but we know the rulers don't want us and don't want to hear about how we can serve them. They just want us to suffer, because that's how they feed their social system.

Also yeah, the whole troon thing is a test to see just how mindfucked Americans and Britbongs are. This is really an Anglo sickness. Most of the world thinks this is fucking insane and cracks jokes about this.


File: 1677319078872.jpg (64.57 KB, 560x631, 560:631, lol.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>Retarded schizo is still writing long-winded ramblings about muh bourgeoise, muh eugenic conspiracy


Proposition 1: Every single piece of knowledge attained is attained through experience alone.
Proposition 2: Just like the stomach needs to digest, the brain must have inbuilt functions that allow for cognition.
Definition 1: All knowledge gained through experience is called a posteriori.
Definition 2: Analytic judgments simply state the given predicate of the subject i.e. All Bachelors are single. Analytic judgments do not require empirical confirmation for the judgment to be true.
Definition 3: Synthetic propositions add new predicates to the subject that are not implicit in the definition i.e., all bachelors are lonely. Empirical science is purely synthetic.
Proposition 3: Geometrical and arithmetical propositions are synthetic, for example, 3 + 5 = 12, the subject “3” and predicate “5” do not contain the result 12, yet the apodeictic nature of proposition means that one does not need to empirically confirm that adding three and five together result in 12.
Denying P3 entails denying that 3 and 5 do not contain the number 12, which means that other arithmetical operations including the numbers 3 and 5 that don’t add up to 12, still somehow contain the number 12 in the definition; the law of identity states A=A, thus 3=3, and 5=5, in order for the predicate 12 to be the result the brain must then be capable of intuiting spatial and temporal qualities.
Proposition 4: In order for the experience to rise, space and time must be unified as matter, since space and time are given as infinite magnitudes, and the quantification of matter which is called mass-energy, cannot be destroyed, it follows that space, time and causality constitute a priori knowledge; allowing for intuitive knowledge of geometry, arithmetic, and physics.
Proposition 5: Because consciousness is only experienced in the singular, and because you have never experience another person’s consciousness you do not have knowledge of another person’s mind, thus it logically follows that to assert whether other beings are conscious is outside the domain of your experience, and hence does not constitute knowledge.


Okay let's poke holes.

>Proposition 1: Every single piece of knowledge attained is attained through experience alone.

What is "knowledge", or a "piece" of it? You're just asserting positivism and declaring it's a fait accompli, which is strange for an idealist. You can be an idealist while rejecting the belief that the foundation of the universe is rationality, since God or something like it is not really a rational proposition.
Knowledge implies a metaphysics to speak of what is known in the first place, and this metaphysics would not in principle be reliant on consciousness to exist. You would have to place something before conscious experience as we know it, or claim that consciousness is something other than what we experience. Why would a prime mover think in any way like we do in our native faculties, if you are speaking purely of what is natural? The very contemplation of God or anything like it requires us to imagine that there is a consciousness of a type different than our own, if that god is to be anything meaningful rather than a souped-up recreation of ourselves. The whole religious tradition about a godhead or even earlier versions of spiritual thought were not premised on recreating ourselves, but suggested something that we could aspire to be like or that granted a spiritual authority that mortals lacked. The point of having a god in the first place is that it is not just like humans, or at least not base humans. If you're going to lift an argument from positivism and make experience the sole fount of genuine knowledge, you are implying a very different metaphysics from idealism. I don't think you really know what you're talking about.

>Proposition 2: Just like the stomach needs to digest, the brain must have inbuilt functions that allow for cognition.

This presupposes the existence of the brain, which is itself a material organ, and that the brain has these functions producing thought materially. So, you're seemingly proving my point. Or is the brain actually made of magic or some special type of matter?
Of course the brain has functions for cognition - my whole point is that cognition exists because it meets the demands of life and that is something we do whether we thought about it or not. We can't not sense the world, in the sense that we could turn off the brain or control what we sense perfectly by will. This is evidence at least that human cognition is nothing special, since we see enough signs of its malleability in our experience. A child can sense this without having any philosophy to tell him what it is.

So far it sounds like you're proving my point. But let's say the brain is comprised of ideas, and the seemingly material aspects of it are some illusory reality. We'll carry on…

>Definition 1: All knowledge gained through experience is called a posteriori.

>Definition 2: Analytic judgments simply state the given predicate of the subject i.e. All Bachelors are single. Analytic judgments do not require empirical confirmation for the judgment to be true.
>Definition 3: Synthetic propositions add new predicates to the subject that are not implicit in the definition i.e., all bachelors are lonely. Empirical science is purely synthetic.
Thanks for the basic definitions which don't really prove your point.

>Proposition 3: Geometrical and arithmetical propositions are synthetic, for example, 3 + 5 = 12, the subject “3” and predicate “5” do not contain the result 12, yet the apodeictic nature of proposition means that one does not need to empirically confirm that adding three and five together result in 12.

Naive set theory - concepts of numeracy are derived from the proposition that you can count things, one at a time. At core you are dealing with a logical proposition that one thing and another can be considered a union of the same type of thing, and add another, and so on, to create every number, fraction, irrational number, and imaginary number.
Mathematics is not an empirical science or science at all, but philosophy. This is pretty basic math. The numbers "3", "5", and "12" aren't actual forms codified anywhere. They are concepts derived from some set theory that allows us to speak of numbers in the first place, whether it is naive set theory or something else. Implicitly, when we carry out arithmetic operations, we are inserting a unit that allows like to be added to like. We wouldn't say "3 apples plus 5 oranges equals 8 apples", or even just "8". Even when the mathematical operations are stated as a general rule, we know that we are assuming that we add together like and like, or that we have classed all the things to be added together - for example, we can say apples and oranges are fruit and there are 8 fruits, but we would have to know what fruit is and the types of fruit, and that apples and oranges are in the class we call fruits.
For mathematics to be applied to any problem in the real world, we are implying the existence of the things we evaluate with mathematics, or that the math points to something actually happening.
Yes, this is a synthetic proposition, but there is a reasoning behind the development of numeracy in the first place. We didn't define each number separately, but we built a concept that things can be counted and the counted groups can be added to, multiplied, and so on. We can't do these operations with every type of number we imagine as if they were morally equal - infinitesimals, for example, are a tricky topic in mathematics, and this was used to attack calculus in the start.

>Denying P3 entails denying that 3 and 5 do not contain the number 12, which means that other arithmetical operations including the numbers 3 and 5 that don’t add up to 12, still somehow contain the number 12 in the definition; the law of identity states A=A, thus 3=3, and 5=5, in order for the predicate 12 to be the result the brain must then be capable of intuiting spatial and temporal qualities.

No, it means you are creating a convoluted example that denies what math even is.

>Proposition 4: In order for the experience to rise, space and time must be unified as matter, since space and time are given as infinite magnitudes, and the quantification of matter which is called mass-energy, cannot be destroyed, it follows that space, time and causality constitute a priori knowledge; allowing for intuitive knowledge of geometry, arithmetic, and physics.

Fully developed knowledge is not inborn. We can intuit certain things about the world, but we don't intuit whole systems, and certainly not in the way you did. You're making assumptions about physical matter which required the existence of a world before your claim, so it's obviously circular. This would also mean that matter is a priori knowledge, which means… matter is where we derive our ideas, which is exactly my point anyway, but I didn't go about it your stupid way.
Put another way, we perceive a world with space and causality because we are creatures resulting from space and causality. What is more likely - that we are at root like any other type of matter, or that human brains alone constitute a special type of matter that is sacrosanct? It should be noted that idealisms didn't rely on identifying the brain functions as some special type of matter, because the function of the brain was not known in any great detail. Idealisms purported the existence of a soul or something like it, and whatever is in the body is just a vessel for that spiritual existence, which was taken to be the true existence. You're mashing together positivism with nonsense.

>Proposition 5: Because consciousness is only experienced in the singular, and because you have never experience another person’s consciousness you do not have knowledge of another person’s mind, thus it logically follows that to assert whether other beings are conscious is outside the domain of your experience, and hence does not constitute knowledge.

So I guess we're adding standpoint epistomology to the mix of ersatz beliefs in your world system? I don't need to experience what is inside another person's thought process to have knowledge of what they're thinking, or at least supposition of what they are thinking. It is trivial to expect that other people are creatures not unlike myself in many respects. I don't have direct access to the subjective experience of another, and such a thing wouldn't be possible without something like telepathy.
Let me put it another way - do you know every aspect of yourself to the most minute, every iota of your body or mind? If you do, then you should be able to investigate what happens when you die, at least for yourself. You would also detect very easily that you are malleable to events around you, whether you interpret them as material things or ideas. You are able to manipulate tools which extend your capabilities and understanding. You are able to glean knowledge from a world that is outside of you.
If you don't even know yourself, then where do you get off claiming that the mind is truly inviolate? Again, if the mind were truly inviolate, so much effort wouldn't be spent trying to break people mentally, or hector people into making sure their beliefs are correct. Obviously someone thinks the mind is violable, or else the strategy would not work.


I can consider others conscious by some simple principles that I attain through self-investigation, and ask if the same events happen for them. Conscious experience as we understand it is not just "there" and couldn't be. It is the result of very particular processes playing out, for us to even have a mind in the first place. Even if you placed this in an idealist view of the world, where we were souls, we would have to accept certain mechanisms are at work to allow for thought to proceed in any recognizable way. The problem of solipsism is solved in idealism by supposing God or Heaven or some regulatory force or mind at work; and when you actually look at idealist cosmologies, they are really nonscientific understandings of the world that arrive at many of the same conclusions we would make today, regarding what humans are spiritually and mentally. The arguments are made by contemplating the self and a spiritual awareness, rather than by looking at the world to find them, but usually there is an explanation given for why we are trapped in bodies, why we reproduce sexually, etc.

You have to make a lot of materialist assumptions to defend your "idealism", about the nature of the brain and matter, before you get into the theory of space and time being a priori knowledge.
I can put it another way - if not space, then what would separate things from another? We imply the existence of space simply because there are different things and a way to relate them. Whatever "it" is, we perceive it as space because that was probably the simplest way for this relation to be a thing we can process. We cannot take space or time for granted or that they are what they seem to be and only that. This again is lifted from the positivist error rather than idealism.

I can say what I said from the start - that even if you presented my views as purely ideas that were directed by a god or some force, the result as far as humans are concerned would be the same. We would just look at things we consider "matter" as ideas, and consider the fundamental matter unknowable. This is exactly my belief - that we as humans only can operate with ideas, and so while we can look at a material or substantive origin of things, we only ever work with ideas in our daily life.

Your views are just a dumb recapitulation of positivism which is at heart a materialist doctrine, and really a pseudoscientific doctrine. It didn't become fully pseudoscientific until idiots like Popper came along and tried to smear Marx as a pseudoscientist on bullshit grounds. Popper is just a fucking idiot.
(FWIW I do believe Marx peddled pseudoscience, but this gets into this whole German thinking on "science", because they literally don't have the same word for "science" that exists in English. My belief is that 20th century systems theory destroyed the system that the German idealists imagined for political purpose, and dialectical materialism had great difficulty coping with that development without breaking a lot of the Marxist reasoning about the world and humanity. Since systems theory has yet to be completed or advanced in a true form, the final result remains to be seen. If you want to get into information theory and what is being discussed today, you can, but there's a lot of bullshit mixed in with genuinely inquisitive pursuits. What we are really seeing is the real-time destruction of humanism, and this has terrible consequences unless something different is considered very soon.)


It should be noted that religions did not consider humans fully material creatures in the first place, and so using religion to justify a naturalistic claim was missing the point. The religious view was that humans were more than merely matter or brainpower, and that this "substance" of the soul was something altogether different from our most basic sense of ourselves. Consciousness was not the real purpose religion sought to explain. People could see without religion how and why they thought as they did. Religion was pointing to a social and spiritual authority outside of us to be meaningful, and religion is the basis for idealism and associated philosophies. Many of the Greek philosophers were proto-atheists who doubted that the gods were anything other than stories or metaphors, and so their view is more properly understood as a precursor to materialism than today's religious idealism. Part of idealism considered the will of people, which doesn't figure into a purely naturalistic view of the world - to be a willful actor and self is to deny the world in some way, unless someone understood themselves materialistically in a way that would have been difficult to fathom in an earlier time. I on the other hand have the benefit of living now, where I know that you could present a very materialistic account for the origin of people and the development of people into something greater, for whom spiritual authority is understandable. In short, I reject the argument that nature in its entirety is something to be cajoled or seen as alien, and that includes other people and myself. It's not a matter of submitting to nature or dominating / being dominated. I prefer to promote cooperation even with people who have done horrible things to me, not because I like them or value their soul, but because I've seen the alternative of competition for its own sake and what it has brought to the world. I don't expect everyone to get along with me - cooperation has to be built over time - but we could do very easy things, like not indulge in autistic horseshit. Certain people would rather be turbo faggots than have nice things though, because they've been primed to think like that and never had a reason to think otherwise. I don't have the luxury of such indulgences.


File: 1677329631742.png (325.54 KB, 677x881, 677:881, 5aaa3c126c2238175c2d130fad….png) ImgOps iqdb

>knowledge knowledge know know know knowledge knowledge know knowledge knowledge know know know know knowledge know knowledge knowledge

Here's some knowledge: Nobody is reading all of that robo-generated cyberphilosophicallical sand bucket of a brainmeal you just dumped in this thread. Substanceless salt buildup scraped from the wheel well of the rusty Toyota Camry that is your rationale.


This is the snarktard response to anything substantive - heap shit on it so all conversations degenerate into the same faggotry ad nauseum. This shit should be banworthy, but it isn't.

People who post snark should just be boiled alive. That's the lowest shit and anyone who does it is outed as a fed shit influencer. That shit is scripted by fucking Tavistock to be as obnoxious as possible. Fuck you very much.


You've conflated "HIGH QUALITY" with "HIGH VOLUME" and users have noticed a pattern in your posting style. Some have admitted to not wanting to engage in these threads out of fear of summoning you to pump more hot gas in to the discussion. If you're going to dedicate a significant amount of time to copy-and-pasting prewritten replies you've written whenever you see a post slightly relevant to its contents, and then proceed to flood a thread knowing damn well nobody is reading all of that, then you should be prepared to meet backlash. You can't seriously lack the self awareness needed to see how you posts present a problem. You know you're a nuisance but you continue to drop these word salads to the detriment of everyone else.


Nothing I write here is prewritten. If I had something prewritten I would say it was that because I do tire of having to repeat myself.
I am aware of your "problem" with my posts - you don't like them, so you engage in forum sliding. You don't want anyone to disagree with you in any way, and you can't even claim to stand for anything yourself. It's the Satanic mindset where you surrender your thought to someone who will tell you what to think. It's ubiquitous and it's something you do because you supplicate to autocrats as a rule.

I wouldn't have to repeat myself if it weren't for the volume of faggotry. You see conversation as a weapon, I see conversation as a dialogue. You then insist everyone else has to force themselves into a straitjacket. This is something that was gamed by intel agencies to silence anyone and produce a chilling effect, and you're a retard for going along with it. It's not like you get a monetary award for being a good supplicant.

Or, you could enter the thread and actually refute the point - but you can't, because you habitually refuse to make an argument other than appeal to authority, because you don't have anything of your own. I haven't written anything controversial. It's the recapitulation of autism that gets me, and you want people to remain retarded because you want a slave society. That's what you are. I have no interest in maintaining a slave society because I don't see any benefit from slavery.

The only attempt at refutation has been this recapitulation of autism and institutional appeals. I've shitposted for over 20 years in my adult life, so I've seen all the tactics used by e-thugs.

Simply put - and this is what I made explicit in my refutation - the autistic versions of idealism do not allow anything new to exist. This is not true of all idealisms - just this retarded version that was designed to stifle any independent thought and terminate a person's investigation of the world or anything. It is a philosophy of autism and pure self-induolgence. The concept that anything has consequences is replaced with a world where forms "just so" happen to exist, and it is impossible to investigate them. We see this in the absurd statement "3+5=12", and that was lifted from a bad philosophy textbook. It's a very easy example for someone to see through if they have any concept of mathematics and what numbers are, or if they actually think for themselves why numbers exist. The intent of the example is to show to the reader that this explanation of idealism is actually absurd bullshit, rather than to tell you there's a version of math where 3+5 does equal 12. It shouldn't have to be explained to you, but some people really are that autistic and have been damaged by their education to believe math is arbitrary. There can't be any concept of where these things came from, but they are presented as something you obey without question, like a good soldier.


Nobody is reading a word of that


You just did, fag.


>the eugenic schizo still at large rambling about schizo shit

What the fuck?


File: 1677432764818.jpg (103.31 KB, 1162x1200, 581:600, 657ce49cf898f0481f8f95235e….jpg) ImgOps iqdb

>I am aware of your "problem" with my posts - you don't like them, so you engage in forum sliding. You don't want anyone to disagree with you in any way, and you can't even claim to stand for anything yourself. It's the Satanic mindset where you surrender your thought to someone who will tell you what to think. It's ubiquitous and it's something you do because you supplicate to autocrats as a rule.
>I wouldn't have to repeat myself if it weren't for the volume of faggotry. You see conversation as a weapon, I see conversation as a dialogue. You then insist everyone else has to force themselves into a straitjacket.
>The only attempt at refutation has been this recapitulation of autism and institutional appeals. I've shitposted for over 20 years in my adult life, so I've seen all the tactics used by e-thugs.
To confirm some of your suspicions and to give you more information, this thread was redeployed from /sci/ by a handful of people after honing their rhetoric over the last 3-4 months. You can review some of the material and integrate it into your model, but there are tens more threads like this:

The 1-2 punch repeatedly employed is "if sentience isn't primary to someone, that person is non-sentient", so this is the wall you'll eventually encounter. You can also see some 4chan lingo cross-contaminating in their replies. Like you I suspect this has little to do with the topic itself but is political, despite us disagreeing on a bunch of stuff


The whole thing about time being linear and history having a proper beginning and end are Creatonist bullshit to me. If there is no Creator, then there is no end or beginning. So time is cyclical. The world will be built again because otherwise you can't explain how the universe "started". "Our" universe "ending" is the cause that results in the effect of the "rebirth" of the universe. So we are coming full circle every time. If you accept causality, materialism and anti-creationism then there isn't a lot to argue against eternal recurrence.
I don't know if I expressed it right but it's like this: if there is no Creator, then how did the first cause appear in the chain of causality without eternal recurrence? You can't explain it.


Yeah, I've heard these arguments for over 25 years. It's the boilerplate liberal mythos about the mind and the eugenics shit, and very often it is jumbled and mashed together with a variety of views. It's also a known error - the actual claim of philosophical idealism in the past did not start with the human subject, but with an observation that there is a world. The sense of self is our issue rather than something fundamental to the universe. It started with humanism becoming the central focus for understanding of the mind and experience, but even the classical humanists had a different take than the version presented now - and this is done because "human" was redefined as a biopolitical concept and stripped of its spiritual connotations, and this line would be aggressively pushed.

Eternal recurrence is a fag interpretation of the world. It's always about me me me with Nietzsche. The idea that the world proceeds in orderly fashion requires belief in a god-like mind - that is, that there is a moment of creation, yet there isn't, so the universe constantly recycles. It is entirely possible and more likely the universe is an absurdity, or its existence is a pure fluke, so any "new universe" (which would really be the same one) would be a new thing; but more likely, "the universe" isn't really a unified whole. We perceive of it as a whole out of necessity, because everything in the world can interact with everything else, given all of our understanding of the limitations of motion being based on a real limitation on what things can do. There is not actually a psychic connection inherent to everything to everything else in the world though - every interaction of a system with another system begins as a local event, and can only act on another system in particular ways. Only indirectly are things truly "all interconnected", and they are not equally connected. This is a very clever rhetorical trick to eliminate the concept of space or distance from reason, by mystifying space as purely a relation, rather than the relation in space meaning something real. This has long been a way to sever people from their tangible understanding - mystifying concepts of space, time, and numeracy, so that ideas that are clearly incongruent with our native sense can be declared "the truth".

Time being cyclical did not always refer to "absolute time", but rather that there was no real historical progress - things only happened at the local level, and we construct history for ourselves as a narrative or record. This is different from saying that there is no such thing as the past - we can accept there are past events, without believing that "time" is an actual thing, which is what causality implies. The cosmos where time is cyclical has always been an extremely idealist creation, which declares that the world is evil and the objective is to escape it. They are in effect substituting the ruling institutions for the world, and saying that you are alien to the world. It's an old story.


That is quite the assumption that isn't really bore out by available evidence.
Eternity is a man-made concept. There isn't really anything that is eternal and infinite. Not objectively speaking anyway.


You can hold the belief that the universe is absurdity while accepting eternal recurrence. Nietzsche was saying this too, there is no God or goal directing the universe, the universe is just a series of cause and effect on and on. It's chaos because there is no logical pattern to it yet it is orderly in some way because if you trace back cause n effect then you can understand why X thing happened.
>It's always about me me me with Nietzsche
Despite his egoism his philosophy is incredibly objective in some ways. He was an egoist but he wasn't self-centered at all, the opposite if anything. To preach moral relativism you must have high amounts of empathy, otherwise you won't consider the pov of others at all.

I don't know what you mean by the universe not being interconnected, it's pretty clear everything is connected to everything on some level. If there appears to be no connection to us it is because we don't have enough information yet. But as you gather more data you will see how X influenced Y and how Y influenced Z.

>The cosmos where time is cyclical has always been an extremely idealist creation, which declares that the world is evil and the objective is to escape it. They are in effect substituting the ruling institutions for the world, and saying that you are alien to the world.

Idealists are more fixated upon some fictional Judgement Day usually than to believe in eternal recurrence. They just can't accept this world and want it to be destroyed. Eastern religions are the exception from this. But as Nietzsche's philosophy pointed out, you can be materialist and embrace eternal recurrence as something that is positive.

Btw, it is possible that the universe goes through changes before arriving at the exact same one we live in now again. I mean it could be like "our universe"->"alternative universe A"->"alternative universe B"- >"our universe again" The importance is on that if we exist now, we will come into existence again, just like we already came into existence countless times before this.


It's more than just assumption. Matter doesn't evaporate into nothing, it just changes. Matter is eternal and infinite. The whole Judgment Day bullshit and end of the world scenarios are just religious wish-fantasies.
>Eternity is a man-made concept
Other way around. Linear time and start/end are man-made concepts because our lives naturally limited to what 60, 70, 80 years at most. We projected our beginning and end to the universe and matter when we came up with nonsense like apocalypse theories and such or the creation of the universe.


> it's pretty clear everything is connected to everything on some level.
How is everything "connected" to everything? Connect implies a direct link to thinks far away, but a thing only acts over something very distant through very indirect means. This just recapitulates that forms have something intrinsic to them, like they were created by hobgoblins to animate matter in a simulation. There isn't a "connection" between me and someone in China, unless you can describe the chain of events linking me to him, and then that connection is separated by the mechanisms by which communication of anything is possible. It's not as if the Chinese worker simply takes a job from me by existing somewhere in the world, because a contract has been signed saying we're both competitors on the market. There has to be a firm relocating to China, China has to be an environment fit for business, you would have to imply the Chinese worker is exactly like me and operates in the same conditions, which is not a given. A great deal of effort was put into building up and socially engineering China to make its workers compliant with the global system, and conversely this led to American conditions changing. These changes did not happen in a "just-so" way. There are causes and effects which we can describe as the movement of real things, rather than just an assertion that "everything is connected, man", in some vague spiritual sense. It's precisely that Germanic thinking that I attack here.
The assembly of a coherent, non-contradictory world-system is necessary for us to function in the long term. If there are contradictions in our thinking, we resolve them by reason. If there are "contradictions" between people, it is not because everyone should get along or one is obligated to win over the other, but because they really do have a fundamental disagreement. We can choose to resolve it, but certain claims of certain people are absolutes and will not tolerate any dissent. You cannot reason with the eugenic creed for instance - it is absolute and ultraviolent, and it claims that eugenics and eugenics alone can enjoy this monopoly over any other law. In other words, you can tell who rules by who you're not allowed to criticize, and you're not really allowed to criticize eugenics, compared to the atrocities of the eugenic creed, like basically instigating the two world wars as a start.

If there is no cause and effect, the two things aren't really "connected" in any way we would appreciate. In some sense you could argue a butterfly moving somewhere has very indirect effects far away, but if you are talking about mechanisms we understand very well, things do not happen simply because a narrative was constructed. If you build a narrative, you should be able to explain why this happens, from start to finish, with reasonable certainty that the causal chain concerns real events and movements rather than just suggesting there's a vague connection.
You might say that we can make a vague connection and work from there to build a better understanding - that is how we pursue a hunch - but the point of this mystification is to obfuscate such connections, so that the crucial assembly of knowledge by native faculties is interrupted. That's intended as a result of German idealism, and they really do think like that. It's the loopiest damn shit, and it's caused great retardation in understanding things that are actually very basic. Then they say the problem is "dialectics" in some vague sense, but there's nothing dialectical about vague insinuations of a connection. Inappropriate use of dialectics is a different problem, but so confused are these ideas that we're not allowed to make the connection so that we would conclude something is bullshit.
That's really Freddy's whole "philosophy" - an excuse to be a raging asshole and a turbofag, rather than recognize what non-fags knew, that morality always refers to a world where real events happen, in order for us to really consider morality relevant. When morality is reduced merely to word tokens, it is stripped of any meaning or context. We make our own moral judgements, but they always pertain to a real world if they are to mean anything. Moral relativism is stupid, whether you're an idealist or materialist. This type of morality doesn't assume that everyone should believe the same thing - that's a silly assumption, because different people will have different wants and understandings, and these wants really aren't reconcilable unless the two parties can understand each other. I don't expect a succubus to be morally equivalent to a man, such that I should be jealous that she is treated differently. She is different than me, and I am different from most men. This is not a justification for political distinction, or distinct classes - political equality is a very particular proposition about institutions and how we conduct certain affairs between each other. Germans, being autocrats, do not believe in that at all. They simply don't, and the philosophy is designed to create the hypocrisy of eugenics and fascism. That's why the English eugenists adopted what was useful in the Germanic model, combining the worst of both worlds.


The only way for things not to be connected to each other is if they exist in some bubbles or in themselves, like idealists suggest in some way. When you consider the universe in a materialist approach you can't avoid seeing it as a whole where every part has an effect on the other parts. It's also why materialism and determinism go hand-in-hand.
You and me influence the chinese people's lives because we buy chinese stuff and therefore contribute to chinese economy on some level which in return has an effect on the lives of chinese people. That's just one example, we could find many others if we wanted to.

Moral relativism is what liberates people from the oppression of the state, church and such institutions. Objective morality was always used by those who oppress others and therefore preach that only their views are correct and everything else is false. Freddy contributed more to liberating people than any communist or anarchist philosopher did, ironically.


There is a distinction between "exists in the same space" and "connected". Connection implies a direct causal and effect, rather than something distant. If we are to understand how I affect someone in China or vice versa, there is a chain of events that makes this interaction indirect. It is an important distinction, because by saying "it's all connected" in a vague sense, distance is removed. Anything can become anything. This is one of the problems of understanding political economy and economics, and it is used to mystify something that is founded on some basic propositions, from the liberal POV. A communist would think differently and look at what actually happens, while a fascist recapitulates the rule of an oligarchic cartel over the society. It is no surprise that the mystifications intensify when fascist regimes need to justify their new ruling ideas, and they want a global system where the nation-states are reduced to serfdom. The Austrian Schoolers want serfdom and everything they do is designed to attain it.

I have a few writings I'm working on concerning this very topic. I'll share what I have so far.

As for morality - it always pertains to a real world to be meaningful. If we want to make moral stances on pure ideas unmoored from substantive reality, we really say nothing. There is not an "objective good", but we're all seeing the same thing, and the same thing will have consequences regardless of our conceits about it.


damn thing won't let me upload text files. but you get the idea - if we would want to have a useful understanding of systems, we'd have to get over this Hegeloid nonsense.


Yes you would see the world as a whole - that's actually what any philosophy would do, materialist or idealist. The idea of disconnected bubbles is just solipsism. The question is how we would evaluate a system and know anything about it, and for that to make sense requires differentiation of things and the basis for logical deduction. Otherwise you can only say a few transcendent truths and hope they stick, and that's purely religious rather than something you could investigate or prove.

[Last 50 Posts]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]