Anyone starting to develop their own philosophy on things? What are you interested in?

Anyone starting to develop their own philosophy on things? What are you interested in?

I believe that glass is not see-through, rather it brings forth a projection of the (noumenal) world existing beyond the pane, presenting on the surface a stereo-gram like image (like a TV screen that shows stereo-grams, that when you focus your vision beyond the TV a 3d world appears, which you mistake for the world beyond the TV, when in fact you're not seeing beyond the surface. Same with mirrors but reversed (projections a stereo-gram on it's surface of the world before it)

I also subscribe to something I'd call 'linguistic idealism', something like that. where there's an inseparable relationship between the phenomenal world and language. with our children, in teaching them language, we create their reality, the community builds the child's way of experiencing reality

instead of "i think, therefore I am" as the extent of doubt, it's actually, "I doubt, therefore meaning exists (you can't understand doubting without the existence of meaning (doubt is a word with meaning)), you can't doubt without meaning existing, therefore meaning is the limit of doubt not the ego, meaning is the foundation of reality (which leads to my 'linguistic idealism')

scientific instrumentalism
no external world

if there is no experiential difference between mans and p-zombies, then there's literally no difference between the two. in the same way h20=water. the existence of experiences beyond my own, to me, exist in the same way as the wall behind my head. it's posited as a way of framing the world, as part of my conceptual scheme. it has o knowable, or speak-able existence beyond that. I guess I'm a solipsist, although I don't deny other people have conscious experience, I just debate the meaning of that. to me, it just means that I frame the word around me as other people having experiences. I can't speak of the word beyond me(as in, I literally can't, I can't refer to it)

antinatalist

I also truly believe that the source of moral facts (moral realist) is myself. my opinions decide what is right and wrong.

no god

I believe in an afterlife. after I die life will thrust me into some sort of phenomenal experience again

I believe in a very primal sort of self. it's unknowable like an arrow shooting at itself, or an eye seeing itself. I can't refer to it, or experience it. but I believe in it, as in I feel like it must be posited

i dunno man sounds like horseshit

>I believe that glass is not see-through, rather it brings forth a projection of the (noumenal) world existing beyond the pane, presenting on the surface a stereo-gram like image
>what is air

what is it?

>Anyone starting to develop their own philosophy on things?

I have. and after several years of contemplation, i have come to believe that McReady was uninfected, and that Childs was.

>I believe in an afterlife. after I die life will thrust me into some sort of phenomenal experience again
This (and possibly more of your "philosophy", I couldn't be fucked to read the rest) is not philosophy, it's pure conjecture. You may as well write science fiction.

Plenty of philosophers have written speculative stuff.

ive been starting to wonder if human rights really are legitimate. where do they come from? where is the body part that makes rights?

>I believe

true philosophies are not something one develops but something that develops by itself through ones life
it is therefore not an issue of beliefs or ideas but of a general view of the world and of the principles ruling everything that happens in it
tags to name the thing are senseless

Yeah but none of it is original or anything and most of it is moral philosophical and all the heavy lifting has been done by others. Essentially a consequentialist (ie the system of power isn’t important only it’s consequences are )political philosophy that (drawing from the Neech, Rosset, Kaczynski and others) ends up being environmentalist in the extreme and ergo tech critical and anti capitalist. However such a society is only likely to be durable if it is highly homogenous, so I favor all racial separatisms (not because race is important(in truth it doesn’t even real)but because only a society which has strong shared loci of value are capable of resisting the industrial capitalist profit motive for higher goals and multicultural societies will always tend to devolve into liberalism).

It is instructive that most of the examples of “liberated “ societies cited by anarchists all always contain some very palpable ethnocultural element (Catalonia, Kurds, Zapatistas). Anarchists hate hearing this but it is true. You aren’t going to have an anarchist society among a “society” of people without shared cultural markers.

As well the state is a lie as the fella says so you gotta watch out for that.

I’m sure t all sounds very edgy to you patricians but really the nuts and bolts of it is a deep Reverence and celebration of life and existence.

>develop your own philosophy
KEK, stopped reading right there

Interesting. Have you ever read Ellul?

Nope! Please recommend something

>I also truly believe that the source of moral facts (moral realist) is myself. my opinions decide what is right and wrong.
how solipsistic

The Technogical Society

Nah man you should at least read on to
>I believe that glass is not see-through
Shit's funny.

It's the penis.

Propaganda is also a must.

No it's the pituitary gland.

It's almost impossible to come up with original ideas I philosoy that are also tangible. Any new ideas are usually borderline schizo and people won't give them a second thought

>"anyone starting to have their own ideas about stuff?"
>wasting all that time writing stupid shit no one wlll read or care about

bro

>instead of "i think, therefore I am" as the extent of doubt, it's actually, "I doubt, therefore meaning exists (you can't understand doubting without the existence of meaning (doubt is a word with meaning)), you can't doubt without meaning existing, therefore meaning is the limit of doubt not the ego

firstly, who is copy pasting my drug ramblings?

secondly, this is actually really interesting. People don't doubt within a vaccuum, within a solipsistic private world. One only understand what it means to doubt by being encultured and embedded within a society and a languge that teaches their children what 'to doubt' means within the context of it's practices.

As in, in order to be able to doubt in the first place, the world itself muse be an essentially public place, where language (including doubt) is taught and passed on to it's members

so what I mean is descartes tried to doubt the world, but he could only functionally understand what it means to doubt something, and to use the word "doubt" correctly ONLY by himself being raised, embedded and existing within a language community, with rules around it's use, and shared practices around it's appllications

doubting is essentually a public activity, it's coherent application rests on the facticity and objectivity of the world.

to apply doubt to the existence of the world, and to the existence of others is almost like a category error. it doesn't apply, doubting as an activity only exists based on the brute fact of the world and of others

Other minds ARE the hard problem

When inverted solipsism is the only truth.

but that's exactly what happened with this very existence now. as in, before this life I was non-existent, and then somehow I was thrust/created/thrown into this phenomenal experience

when I die I will be non-existent again

and we know from the existence of this experience/life now, that it is in the nature of non-existence to produce lifetimes/experiences for you. we 100% know this, because we are existing right now

so when we die and cease to exist again, why would 'non-existence' not thrust us into another lifetime again? it already did it once before, we know it's in the nature of 'non-existence' to "produce" (hard to find the words here when referring to literally nothing, take my writing as poetic) lifetimes and experiences

it just seems extremely likely to me that when I die life will thrust me into another existence again.

this is what i believe

well yeah dude, I basically advocate solipsism in the OP

theories of perception rest on this idea that there is a 'direction' of the visual process

so for example direct realist has the direction being body -> outwards onto external world

indirect realist posists external world -> inwards to body (which generates a private experience of world)

this is wrong either way. it's a nonsense that ones nervous system somehow perceives the world (your nervous system is itself PART of this perceived world, so it must be causing it's own existence if that's the case)

in reality the world around you, your body, your nervouse system, others -> they are all just singularly imposing themselves. there is no actual perception occuring between your body and the world. rather all of it is just presented as a singular thing, everything just kind of thrusts itself into existence, the world entirely presents itself

so our sense organs don't actually perceive anything, rather they too are themselves part of this 'thrusted' world, that just sort of imposes it's existence

dunno if I'm explaining this right

Is the glass half full or half empty?

It will always be half empty.
If you grab a glass, it is empty. It is 100% empty.
When you proceed to pour a liquid into the glass, you are decreasing the level of emptiness.
So you would pour enough liquid in to decrease the amount of emptiness to 50%,half empty.
Congratulations on your always half-empty glass.

the glass is filled with cum

Just wanted to say yes tldr but thanks for spending your time high and energy making and crafting this post.

your glass was filled with cum, it is now empty

You seem like a brain-dead delusionist.

Nothing you wrote really means anything. It refers to itself and non-concepts, just pilling on more of itself.

I think the glass thing was kind of original

The glass part is pretty meh kid. You need to work on that if you want it to get any traction with unsympathetic strangers. Try to simplify the language you are using. If you can't then that is really because you don't understand what you are trying to say.

You are guessing and running with your first assumptions. It is lazy and you trust yourself too much and really this is what outs you as young. Too special to be incorrect sort of reasoning common to millions.

It's already explained in very simple language.