are you ready for the /finalredpill/, Veeky Forums?
That civilization is inherently unstable, and that to pursue the fool's gold that is "knowledge", is to ultimately pursue self-destruction itself?
That our greatest failure is to assume we can even succeed in the first place.
That true spirituality is within, not outside in the ether.
That the meaning of life is not in the act, but in the acceptance?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
fuck off faggot
That's no way to treat your shared existence
Ur gay lmao
...
Varg a giant pussy and a huge nerd, that is his biggest shame and it's so obvious you know
>He read Sprengler and thinks it's profound.
This actually falls in line with the blue pill fairly well
>muh pseud spirituality
>muh accept the meaninglessness of life
>muh trendy pessimism
If you hadn't said "red pill" I'd confuse you with a Camus-reading teen
>This actually falls in line with the blue pill fairly well
Not really. We were doing just fine for hundreds of thousands of years merely hunting and living off the land.
It's not until we created agriculture, the concept of property, and then everything else that civilization entailed (the mixing of different tribes, the creation of social classes that meant some were destined to forever live a life of menial labor, overpopulation, disease).
Every single bad thing that you can think of today, was an inevitable result of civilization.
The point is: there was no NEED for a red pill back then, because YOU WERE ALREADY LIVING THE RED PILL. You were already living the purest form of life.
Also forgot to mention that mental disorders are a result of civilization as well. As are suicidal tendencies.
You forgot
>that christianity and christian morality cannot save the West from it's inevitable decay and destruction
>dude I'm so deep and philosophic, I need to make a thread on Veeky Forums about it
wew
>dude im so funny and above it all, i need to make a post about it.
͡ ͜ʖ ͡
>Also forgot to mention that mental disorders are a result of civilization as well.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
>fact
>Institutionalized democratic acceptance of an observation of reality
People really cant think and sense outside their civilizational boxes and think and sense for themselves.
>red pill
Which is more probable: that everything Neo had been living was actually real, or that he had been fed a faultless fantasy reality his entire life which only happened to break down after years of isolation?
also not dying when you are 20 and food security.
also living a boring existence till 80+ and becoming fat and lazy
civilizational thinkers can only think of the positives of its existence but never the costs of upholding such a luxurious existence.
What's stopping you from fucking off into the woods and leaving the normal people alone?
The same woods, your state claims without actually inhabiting them? The same woods your state will use force to remove us from?
Civilizations have claimed the entire earth without actually performing the duties of in-habitation which used to be the historical basis for land ownership.
1.
So, someone that has never studied Epistemology (namely OP) has decided to use the well known, studied and Academically Labeled "Infinite Regress Fallacy" that has already been dissected and proven a false-conclusion, and which was never taken seriously by Educated Academics in the first place.
You know that 1 second on Google could have given you 3 different solutions to that nonsense.
2.
>That true spirituality is within, not outside in the ether.
You haven't proven spirituality exists in either the abstract or concrete; therefore: Proof By Assertion Fallacy
>That the meaning of life is not in the act, but in the acceptance?
Basic Bitch "Begging the Question" Fallacy.
First of all, who says there has to be a point? Second, how does the universe relate it's existence to your measly "acceptance" which is just chemicals and electrical signals in your tiny brain?
Our whole galaxy isn't even .00000000000001% of this quadrant of the galaxy-cluster we're part of, and yet you think thoughts matter and that there is meaning in that.
How cute.
Go back to school.
Nobody is going to arrest you for living in the woods.
>using (((logic))) instead of following your own truth
cuck.
The true redpill is that there is no "final redpill". If you're not actively seeking new knowledge and trying to improve your way of thinking then you're doing it wrong. If you think you've "figured out" how everything works then you're just another dumb faggot.
fallacy fallacy
just because an argument is fallacious does not imply it's also false.
OP is not the first or the last to come to some of these conclusions.
No.
The fallacy fallacy only applies to the Gettier Problem of True Justified Belief and Coincidence.
Argument -> Conclusion
It's a Fallacy Fallacy when it's dictated that the CONCLUSION can't be correct just because the ARGUMENT doesn't support it.
It's NOT a Fallacy Fallacy when the ARGUMENT doesn't support the CONCLUSION and therefore the ARGUMENT has no merit on it's own NOR to support the CONCLUSION.
One is DISMISSAL, one is RATIONAL SKEPTICISM.
From
Again
A picture to illustrate
I assume you see in OP's ramblings a series of arguments that doesn't support a conclusion.
I read a series of conclusions that contain no arguments.
so what you see as a fallacious argument I read as merely a list of tautological truths with a couple undefined assertions tossed in to spice it up.
>tautological truths with a couple undefined assertions tossed in to spice it up.
That's complete gibberish world-salad.
Something cannot be a tautological truth without
a. truth being worked out via an argument
or
b. an axiomatic self-referential (pointed out)
I'm willing to be my life you've never taken an Epistemology course, let alone graduated.
All conclusions require evidence, even axiomatic declarations.
>an axiomatic self-referential (pointed out)
such as when discussing the destruction of an agent, any activity by that agent leading up to their destruction can be said to contribute in some way to that destruction, and thus all destruction is self-destruction?
or that to engage in any activity prior to your self-destruction is to hasten it merely by the passing of time, so that in pursuing knowledge (or collecting stamps) one can be said to "pursue self-destruction itself?"
Here, /pol/, let me help you with your mental illness.
Print this and frame it, and put it where you can see it throughout your day.
Now you're engaging in a text-based version of echophenomenon, misinterpreting it as axiomatic and tautological. You have to start from a foundation and argue for relationships without uses of absolute (formal) fallacies in the arguments themselves (often via propositional calculus ).
Step:
1. Define terms
2. Define relationships
3. Hypothesize process
4. Show work
5. Analyze
6. Share
7. Engage in Socratic, Epistemological and Empirical Debate
>civilization is inherently unstable
Is that why even the dipshit in your picture still advocates a form of social organization that falls under civilization? Also civilizations are totally unstable, that's why they're constantly undergoing change, revolution, decay, and genesis. But as a concept, civilization hasn't totally broken down in any region it's appeared in since it first did so.
>That our greatest failure is to assume we can even succeed in the first place.
We succeed at many things. There's no final success, since much like with people, the growth and development of a society never really ceases until it ends.
>That true spirituality is within, not outside in the ether.
All spirituality is "within" since it's a fundamentally personal thing. Though I share your rejection of "otherworldliness" in spirituality.
>That the meaning of life is not in the act, but in the acceptance?
The acceptance of what?
>1. Define terms
the fact that both OP and I skipped step one should have been your first clue.
but to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail, so your error is understandable.
You're just declaring an error without proving it.
>proof by assertion fallacy
>argument from stone fallacy
1. What is your argument.
2. What is your conclusion.
Put up or shut up you pompous pseudo-intellectual trash bag.
>1. What is your argument.
OP has not made an argument, nor have I.
>2. What is your conclusion
your demand for a formal argument where none is offered indicates a particular mental illness characterized by reliance on formal constructs and inability to operate outside of them.
Retard
Not an argument.
OP back
In my one, true vision of reality, there is no reality to rationalize. It must only be accepted.that life has no rational basis.
The scientific rationality that you "believe" to exist is, as I said, fool's gold. It is a facsimile of reality designed to lead you on a millennia-long goose chase.
There is no guarantee that it is good to pursue rationality insofar as we already have done.
In short, you have no objective proof that you are living a "better" life than anyone, and thus you are as much of a fool as anyone else, perhaps even less of one than the madman
There is nothing to figure out. Only tradition.
>What's stopping you from fucking off into the woods and leaving the normal people alone?
I am planning on living off of nature eventually
>Is that why even the dipshit in your picture still advocates a form of social organization that falls under civilization? Also civilizations are totally unstable, that's why they're constantly undergoing change, revolution, decay, and genesis. But as a concept, civilization hasn't totally broken down in any region it's appeared in since it first did so.
I don't know his entire ideology, but to my knowledge he does not advocate for advanced systems of agriculture, which I consider the very first step to modern civilization.
>We succeed at many things. There's no final success, since much like with people, the growth and development of a society never really ceases until it ends.
We succeed based on our own pre-defined goals. But there is no reason to take up those goals in the first place. We only create needless suffering.
>All spirituality is "within" since it's a fundamentally personal thing.
At the same time, we cannot achieve it by ourselves. We need mentors; people who pass on the tradition: youtube.com
>The acceptance of what?
That so-called "rational" knowledge breeds neuroticism, obsession, inequality.
>even less of one than the madman
should be: "more of one"
...
>I don't know his entire ideology, but to my knowledge he does not advocate for advanced systems of agriculture, which I consider the very first step to modern civilization.
Yeah? Who is going to enforce that? You forgot that societies are locked in a struggle of all against all, and they'll first seek to preserve their own existence and then to expand their capacity to act. If you don't engage in advanced agriculture, someone else will and will surpass you.
>We only create needless suffering.
Suffering is a core component of our existence. We desire to expand our ability to act, and this desire left unfulfilled creates suffering, and so we seek to fulfill it. This would still be true even in your primitivism.
>mentors
There's no fundamental difference between us and them, and no reason to think their spirituality is more effective than our own.
>That so-called "rational" knowledge breeds neuroticism, obsession, inequality.
Do you have a single fact to back that up?
HOL UP ROLL UP
>dude, just do nothing! lmao
Wrong, the "ultimate redpill" would be realizing that there is no magical pill that can solve all your problems. What is best in life is usually obvious but difficult.
Even if, let's say, you are a scientist and you need to complete some super smart complex task to achieve excellence, your next choice should be obvious. It should be to sit down and study something or work on a project, you won't accomplish much, it might take years, but that is the way forward. This is what I mean by "obvious".
We spend all our time trying to find an easier way because we don't want to accept reality, not because we are embracing some ethereal truths.
>The scientific rationality that you "believe" to exist is, as I said, fool's gold. It is a facsimile of reality designed to lead you on a millennia-long goose chase.
pic related
You might say "I don't care about material wealth". However imagine you are living off the land and it takes a day to thresh 5 bushels of grain then you invent a tool that allows you to thresh 7 bushels. Maybe it is meaningless, but it takes 30% less time to thresh grain, it is not a bad thing.
Why is it noble and virtuous to till the soil but not to search for a more efficient means of threshing grain? You are obviously just scolding science purely to be edgy. Pointless discussion.
Why not be more edgy and argue that we should chop our cocks off. My cock is more precious to me than science, that would really get my synapses sparking.
>Yeah? Who is going to enforce that? You forgot that societies are locked in a struggle of all against all, and they'll first seek to preserve their own existence and then to expand their capacity to act. If you don't engage in advanced agriculture, someone else will and will surpass you.
Did you not already hear me say that civilization is "an inevitablity"?
>Suffering is a core component of our existence. We desire to expand our ability to act, and this desire left unfulfilled creates suffering, and so we seek to fulfill it. This would still be true even in your primitivism.
The type of suffering found in tribalism is the type that leads you towards spiritual progression.
The type of suffering found in modern society is the type that leads one to spiritual nihilism.
>There's no fundamental difference between us and them, and no reason to think their spirituality is more effective than our own.
That's just ignorant.
>Do you have a single fact to back that up?
There's a high correlation between high-genius IQ and depression; a vast portion of scientists throughout history have sacrificed their lives for their creed; they're essentially merely seen as "tools" for the "advancement" of the human race.
>Wrong, the "ultimate redpill" would be realizing that there is no magical pill that can solve all your problems.
It's not as simple as that; as long as civilization exists, there will be inequality, greed, and there will be someone that has to do the slave labor.
You can't just "wish" that away, or sweep it under the carpet.
>You might say "I don't care about material wealth". However imagine you are living off the land and it takes a day to thresh 5 bushels of grain then
Why is it noble and virtuous to till the soil but not to search for a more efficient means of threshing grain?
It's not "noble and virtuous" to till the soil. Agriculture is part of the problem (although not all types of agriculture. Horticulture is good.)
Roll
>can't even spell
Kys Moishe
edgy and cool