Hi Veeky Forums

Questions please

why haven't you committed suicide yet

I second this one. Burning question on my mind as well

You do realize this probably looks like a serious inquiry, right?

Full disclosure: I wrestled with suicidality for about a year and a half. Heres the secret: i could kill myself tomorrow without any remorse. I dont take life particularly seriously

You haven't answered my questions of whether or not you read Schopenhauer or Nietzsche. If you haven't, you really should. My suggestions are sincere.

I like Peterson, but he should sure as hell shouldn't be your greatest philosophic influence. He's doing a lot of good, but the man is merely a candle next to the sun of the greats. Any ancient Greek, post-Renaissance German, or post-turn-of-the-century French philosopher could blow him and all of his arguments out of the water, and drown him in their depth of reading. If you think Peterson is the end all and be all, you haven't read any philosophy.

Also, since you said:
>I dont take life particularly seriously
You could really benefit from Nietzsche, as embracing the Dionysian is sort of his shtick.

Another poor aphorism. You can literally flip to any page of Nietzsche's aphorisms and they would blow all of yours out of the water. You literally don't have hook to hang your metaphors.

Anyway, here are some more questions for you:
1) How do you feel about Antinatalism?
2) What's your stance on Nihilism?
3) Are things deterministic?
4) Who's your favourite poet?
5) Are you under 20 years old?

Don't think like that. Why would you say in your own OP post to "never give up" if it isn't your philosophy?

>the idea that "DOOM" is the ground of reality
I assume we're talking about the video game.

Now THAT I can agree with. I sunk so many hours into that game -- I even made my own map mods for it... good times... good times..

1) How do you feel about Antinatalism?
Couldn't be more against it
>2) What's your stance on Nihilism?
The only true evil in this world (relatively speaking)
>3) Are things deterministic?
The answer is in the balance
>4) Who's your favourite poet?
RUPI XXXDDDD
>5) Are you under 20 years old
24

This is tangentially related to what I said. I think suicide is horrendous (and the most shocking way for a person to die) but having a lack of fear of it is what brought me out of my situation

>I dont take life particularly seriously
do you take it playfully?

New Age is more evil than Satanism. I would strictly recommend you never go near it ever again.

To clarify this statement. The whole basis of it is "the universe is love", as if knowledge is what makes this true. The universe is LOVE if you so choose to find a way to love people. New Age philosophy has shockingly low prioritization on virtue, perhaps none at all. All simply for the sake of wanting a selfish, happy life. Could you imagine anything more retched than leading a kind hearted person into this philosophy?

Virtue is nonsense. Fuck off back to plebbit

You will forever be empty and restless without it. Do you find it odd that Eckhart Tolle always comes across as sad and disappointed? He's clueless as to how to deal with people.

To add: Nietzsche WAS virtuous. He contributed immensely to the creation of this world as we know it today.

Are you trying to talk about the fact that we are finite/mortal and conscious of this?
Also, how would you reply to someone saying doom is necessarily predicated of something, or is a feature
that something possesses, and not an independent in its being? Further, that doom as a concept presuposes
certain things such as time, movement, change, existent objects?
Supposing I am understanding what you are saying properly.

Go away

With those justifications, ranking Kaur as your favourite poem, and your stated age, I cannot but accept that this is bait. I genuinely regret being sincere. If you're not baiting, then you have not only proven yourself to not read or care about philosophy, but also poetry or anything of substance.

Stop your little philosophical project and contribute positively to world by picking up an actual skill. Philosophy is not your calling.

Maybe if you came across as more understanding and less dogmatic then I would be more open? Do you really think the great philosophers would want you take their word verbatim? I have a mastery of metaphysics, if you're so inclined, why not pose me an actual question rather than semantic gibberish.

>You will forever be empty
you say this like it's a bad thing, that's virtue getting in the way

here take this example of a polo

you can say, "it is sweet but it has a hole in it"
or you an say "it has a hole in it but it is still very sweet"

if you don't believe that the void can ever be filled please take LSD and your void shall be overflowing for the rest of your days

>mastery of metaphysics
>semantic gibberish.
Solid kek, kid.

Well, you certainly have bravado. Let's hear your best aphorism and we shall start there.

>suicidality
fucking kek

OP your ideas are somewhat wise, to an extent, but posting it here is a bad idea they will just tear you apart for the sake of driving you out.

Some issues I found is with the thesis that "DOOM" is the ground of reality, in what way? It doesn't connect with your other points, try to understand what I'm talking about before you answer this. The rest of it is fairly good, but don't listen to most of the people here, they have nothing to offer to you, they just want to drive you out because they are inclined to antagonize.

I'd read a book about how DOOM was somehow the metaphysical basis of reality or something like that

Life is about chasing your motivations until you die.

The concept of "there is either determinism or not" is rubbish. The secret of postmodernism is no-one truly believes, but rather falls into it because its easy and comfortable. Your citing of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer while asking a question like that is absurd

A decent compromise but ultimately inferior.

Post one more time, I dare you. Go fuck your computer.

>The conquer your greatest fear is have all of your life's questions answered

Can you fix this wretched stain of a sentence before you even consider presenting any kind of formal work?

Typo my dude. Maybe consider finding sincerity before you do some critique

It sincerely angered me to have been met with such a blaring mistake from an aspiring philosopher.

Your prose is subpar. Be concise with your words. Don't try to wax poetic if you struggle to find the words. Familiarize yourself with the thoughts of the giants. See things from their perspective, and merely by digesting their prose will yours improve. You say you've "done all four." I'm not convinced. Philosophers galvanize their work with real world experience. Put your own ideas to the test and reflect on them. No more typos either...

Did i hurt you dear?

Pretty sure he hurt you.

"He"

But thanks for the advice. Just joshing ya. I'm working on being sincere before I get the prose down. I've been practicing peotry but I'm sure you'd all hate it.

>It is a discourse on the idea that "DOOM" is the ground of reality, and without it, reality ceases to exist at all.

Stop doing drugs.

First, you've completely avoided my challenge, so let's back through everything, starting with your last response.

One of the beautiful statements I've heard regarding philosophy is that "philosophy seeks what is True, failing that, what is Consistent, failing that, what is Clear."

I have no fucking clue what you're talking about my dude.

>The secret of postmodernism is no-one truly believes, but rather falls into it because its easy and comfortable

Like what falls into it? Is it postmodernists into non-belief? People into postmodernism? Postmodernists into whether or not there is determinism?

Furthermore, plenty of postmodernists drink from their own draft in a serious way. Lee Endelman is one example in our contemporary, but I mean Delezue, Guattari, and Lacan all took their silliness seriously. Derrida was just having fun, while Foucault was inverting power structures for his own gain - so they wouldn't quite believe, but the modern academics have taken up their works and have really fallen into its belief.
Video related of sincere postmodernist: youtube.com/watch?v=C9SiRNibD14

Still, as far I understand Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, both are compatibilitists who lean closer to the deterministic edge. S believes that the Will-to-Live dominates, but there is still clearly agency in the individual to attain an inner piece, otherwise, he would not be writing essays like 'Aphorisms on the Wisdom of Life' in Parerga and Parlipomena, while N has a stronger, more scientific-leaning edge to his determinism, he a form of self-actualization through the Will-to-Power which is clearly non-deterministic.

Even if S or N rejected the question, which neither did, or if the post-moderns have, the question has not been resolved, and it is a core aspect of any philosophical system, such as Ethics or Epistemology.

The medieval theists would use such an example as pointing to a lack within the individual, the question is not whether or not the polo is sweet, but whether there could have been more polo to savour - which the answer is of course yes. Such is their understanding of Good and Evil: Evil is the absence of Good. No amount of Evil would void one's ontological significance to God (sweetness), but clearly thinner rings, or rings with smaller circumferences, should be sold at a cheaper price than your original polo, otherwise the consumer is ripped off. The question is whether or not you want you want a life that is best, or a life that is second best. The second best settles for the hole, the best completes the hole earnestly in understanding the ontological basis of the existence - which to you would be 'Doom'. Therefore, in your framework, the only way to satisfactorily 'fill that hole', or, in your estimations, to be okay with it, would be understand the framework of existence. For you, philosophy is still salvific and completing. You've moved the onus of God onto Philosophy herself.

please rephrase in 10 words or fewer

I hit character max.

First, the equation of global warming to 'conquering our prison' isn't the best one. Global warming only kills the people on the globe, not the earth itself. If you want to conquer your prison, blow it up - we have enough nukes. If you feel bad about not contributing to this amazing project, shouldn't there be an ethical response to learning how to drive so you can aid in the destruction? Also, why aren't you living a life which promotes such destruction? Why not start your own Jonestown? Why not become a serial killer? Why not actively poison your local lakes and rivers by ordering mercury online and pouring into them? Are you a hunter? Keep hunting, but leave the carcasse to let that mass extinction rolling. I mean, seriously, if the implosion of humanity is a divine mandate, you really got to take it seriously. This also doesn't jive with , where you take a stance against antinatalism. If you want to destroy humanity, don't procreate. If God is exhausted by listening to all these prayers and watching omnipotently over all these beings, wouldn't be an act of human mercy toward the divine not to procreate?

We can start with the question of what exactly is Doom, and how can it be the ground of reality. Doom, it seems to me, is a negation of, let's say, Hope. These are still aspects or extensions of the person, who exist prior to them. There could exist a death-drive (see: Freud), but it cannot be the ontological basis of the universe, when planets form themselves, and animals preserve themselves and procreate. Nature herself stands in opposition to your ground of reality, and Nature sure as hell precedes any object which could embrace and promulgate Doom. Furthermore, wouldn't the spreading of Doom be antithetical to its project? If you believe Doom was at the center of things, but posted this on Veeky Forums in Hope of people embracing it or conversing with it, weren't you operating outside of Doom? Wouldn't the only way for your philosophy to be true is to have everyone reject it? For it to die along with you and never be thought again? That seems to me a pretty shitty ground of reality when it cannot ground itself in reality.

Now for your aphorism:
You're stating that life has questions that need answering. Yet, there's not discussion on what the problem of life is, not why it needs answering. Certain Eastern movements, such as certain strains of Buddhism and Taoism, complete pass over this question; there are not problems of 'MY life' only that certain things are case and certain actions in response to case would be best. Still, you're aphorism is Hopeful as it doesn't indicate an ability to fail as there are half answers, mostly whole answers, and a complete answer with your philosophy. How can you generate a philosophy centered on Doom (which you have not defined) when your outlook on life is genuinely Hopeful? Why isn't Hope the central block to your philosophic framework?

You do not think well, and proper philosophy needs thinking.

Okay but what does this have to do with 'doom'?

I'd even pay for it.