What philosophy will unfuck my shit? can I read them without reading the greeks first?

What philosophy will unfuck my shit? can I read them without reading the greeks first?

>Without reading Greeks

Kids nowadays, I swear.
I weep for the future

Post-taoism

Yes, start with the Romans and become a Stoic

this kid is currently reading them, I'm not planning on skipping but my shit's too fucked and I'm inpatient

Your shit should be unfucked by the time you're done with Discourses by Epictetus. Marcus and Seneca will just prop you up further.

Rather than literally reading the Greeks, you should read one or two authors who have digested them for you. Then find a "History of Philosophy" sorta book that'll give you the cliffnotes of several philosophers throughout time - pick one that tickles your fancy and read up books about him, then his actual books.

But yeah, you do need to start with the Greeks as all the later philosophers reference their concepts, as will anyone writing about any non-Greek philosopher.

Philosophy is not always the best route to "unfucking your shit" though - if anything it may just fuck it more. Depends on where you go with it, I suppose - but truth seeking isn't always pleasant or emotionally healthy, and something best left for when you're in good order. Religion may be more what you need, but of course, pick the wrong one or get in with the wrong crowd, and that can go horribly wrong. At least philosophy won't pressure you to do anything, I suppose.

The Greeks? What do they know of Oratory besides what is vital to arguing down the Harlot's price?

Greeks talk a whole pot of nonsense.

Allow me to unfuck your shit user:

Literally nothing matters on a cosmic scale. This is a good thing, because it means that you are a free man, to the extent that you have the strength and wits to enforce your freedom. People always act in their own self-interest, except in extremely rare cases where "altruism"
(a trait evolved because acting in the best interest of the herd is generally in the best interests of the individual) truly fucks them over. "Actions in their own self interest" refers to actions that will improve the chance of passing on, in some capacity, the traits that they possess.

All traits continue to exist for a singular reason, and that reason is that their existence in an individual make that individual more likely to pass that same trait on to another individual - or at the very least, do not remove entirely the possibility that he might. The central trait of life is to pass on traits, because any life that did, or does not, possess this trait tends, or tended to, die out. Keep in mind, by the way, that a "trait" here refers to any single describable aspect of an entity, including ideas and opinions.

And that is the purpose of it all. We are machine products of relatively harsh natural processes, as is every other pattern existent in nature. Your purpose is to groom the collection of traits that make up your being such that you, and your descendants, are able to repeat as much of your pattern as is possible, as much as is possible.

In essence, go forth and multiply, but more deeply than you might first have thought.

Or not you know. You are, after all, a free man. I described the biological and natural imperatives that caused you to come into being. You are under no obligation to follow them yourself, and you are welcome to find meaning in whatever you want, but it is to your advantage that you do it always with the fact of the way of life in mind.

I hope you see the autistic beauty in this that I do.

This sounds like a good way to fuck up your shit.

Not him but youre pretty dumb.

only if you're a total fuck up that cannot even deal with life and should totally end it

Not him but I think you are the one who is dumb.

I am him, and (I say this in the most friendly way possible) I'd like to know how, exactly, this fucks up one's shit. I mean, I have never opened a philosophy book in my life, but I have never made an observation about the world that was inconsistent with what I described above, and I find that it does not provide me with a cosmic reason, it does provide me with a permanent material purpose, as well as the license to achieve it in my own fashion, and that to me is invigorating.

i like how you write

>What philosophy will unfuck my shit
that's not the domain of philosophy. first unfuck your shit then you can philosophy.

this is childish. I came up with the same idea when I was 15. honestly, how does 'nothing matters on a cosmic scale,' make you a free?

I'm guessing, by the dismissiveness of your tone, that you stopped really reading after the first line? No judgement, but after reading my response, it might benefit you to go back and read the rest with a more open mind.

It makes you free (to continue in the vein of childishness) because there is no cosmic figure of any kind looking over your shoulder. Nothing greater than what you can observe directly in the world around you is riding on you doing the "right thing". If there were a metaphysical reason for our being, that would mean that more importance and responsibility was attached to our actions than what I described. In essence we are free because what one does only matters in relation to how much that helps one achieve one's goals.

If I might ask, what personal philosophy do you ascribe to; if you discarded something similar to this as childish?

Thanks mate

*subscribe, not ascribe, sorry. I shouldn't be discussing philosophy at 1:30 in the morning on a Sino-Tuvan elbow rubbing forum.

Aristotle and an aardvark go to Washington
Plato and a platypus walk into a bar
Heidegger and a hippo walk through those pearly gates

All by Thomas cathart and Daniel Klein,

Stirner.

Stoic philosophy is oddly applicable to the current time

Meditations by Marcus Aurelius is a good start

>"Be like a rocky promontory against which the restless surf continually pounds; it stands fast while the churning sea is lulled to sleep at its feet. I hear you say, "How unlucky that this should happen to me!" Not at all! Say instead, "How lucky that I am not broken by what has happened and am not afraid of what is about to happen. The same blow might have struck anyone, but not many would have absorbed it without capitulation or complaint."
t. alpha

Hegel (some bitter fat guy) critiqued stoic philosophy by saying
>"A philosophy that reduces all states of harm or injustice to emotional states, could only appear on the scene in a time of universal fear and bondage."

To which some smart guy replied
>"political liberty could hardly flourish after so many years of despotism and the indifference to public affairs which it bred. And philosophy fostered the same spirit."

So pretty much the times that caused stoic philosophy to arise has a lot of parallels with the shit going on with us now
But yea start with the Greeks fag

Hit a stoic, he doesn't hit back.

While I don't categorically disagree with this, a few things...

For starters, since the premise is resting on science and evolution, some basic science: the gene isn't as selfish as you're thinking. Behavioral adaptations are not just advantageous to the individual, but to the group, which in turn, aids in the survival of individuals. Thus, if a trait increases survival rate within the group, that trait passes as well. Humans developed empathy and social dynamics, an ability to suspend self-interest as it relates to others, to improve their survivability. Similarly herd and insect social dynamics aren't the result of every creature to looking out solely for itself - to one degree or another they evolved beyond that, and are stronger for it.

More importantly, however, genetic evolution has been left in the dust by informational evolution. Over the past 10,000 years, by gathering, applying, and disseminating knowledge, we've gone from barely scratching out a living as hunter-gatherers, threatened by predators, the elements, and starvation, nearly every day of our lives, rarely seeing anything more than a mile from our hovels... To the dominant species on the planet, where those things are rarely an issue, we're spread throughout the world, and moving beyond.

Meanwhile, in those same 10,000 years, genetic evolution has given us slightly better lactose tolerance. (And with CRIPSR now on the table, genetic evolution is soon to be entirely obsolete.)

Not that having babies isn't a fine goal, but at this point, that's just basic maintenance. Raising your offspring to contribute to that information based advancement, and/or doing so yourself, on the other hand, is something that will have a much more radical effect, both on yourself, and the species as a whole.

But good luck with that. Breeding, is easy - parenting, is hard.

Underrated.

I did explicitly define "trait" as including both genetics and ideas and opinions, and I did also mention that altruism benefits the individual through strengthening of the group; although looking back, I didn't talk enough about how acting in the interests of others is, in the vast majority of cases, in your best interests as well. But rest assured these are things that I'm aware of and have thought about, but with only 2000 characters to work with I decided to brush over them.

>you're a free man in the cosmic scale
>oops nevermind you're just an organism anyway slave to the biological imperative to multiply itself so just do that teehee

Not sure if I made it explicit enough, but I did intend for my definition of trait and assessment of trait-reproducing behaviour to indicate that spreading your ideas or way of thinking is a similar process: you are creating, in other individuals, a reproduction of traits which you possess. I should have explicitly stated that the other individual does not necessarily need to be your child.

you never opened a philosophy book in your life, how can you think you can talk about philosophy and smugly ask people what they subscribe to when you can't articulate anything beyond a high schooler's conception?
> no cosmic figure of any kind looking over your shoulder. Nothing greater than what you can observe directly in the world around you is riding on you doing the "right thing". If there were a metaphysical reason for our being, that would mean that more importance and responsibility was attached to our actions than what I described
oh, nevermind

Did you miss the part where I said you are 100% free to ignore that if somehow it doesn't suit you? Like I said, you are free to the extent that you have the wits and strength to enforce your own freedom. Seeing the choice between ignoring the biological imperative and accepting its drive, I chose to accept it. But any man with the power to override or even trick that instinct is fully able to make a different choice to myself.

The biological imperative exists, but we are under no obligation to follow it; to speak of obligations in a frame if reference outside of that of your own goals is to speak of something which does not exist: all obligation is both theoretical and material and you are capable of setting the degree to which you feel obligated to take a certain path.

How is that not freedom?

Learn about serious psychological practices. The philosophy here is not for you to feel good, but for you to speak about the complex truth of the world.

>hit a Stoic
>he hits you back, but not out of butthurt but because a faggot simply needs to be put in it's place

that's how these people, normal people, who become materialistic nihilists still manage to go about their lives and make up some bullshit excuse and rationalization to satiate their desire for reason
>When man is happy, the meaning of life and other eternal themes rarely interest him. These questions should be asked at the end of one's life.

>Philosophy is not always the best route to "unfucking your shit" though - if anything it may just fuck it more. Depends on where you go with it, I suppose - but truth seeking isn't always pleasant or emotionally healthy, and something best left for when you're in good order.
This

This is an ad hominem. I was genuinely trying to be polite in the post you linked, but I was responding to an unnecessarily aggressive statement so I had to take a fairly defensive stance. I am being as humble as I possibly can while still defending myself (which should not be necessary in a civilised discussion) and my views, by putting forth arguments that are based purely on the subject of the conversation. You, on the other hand, are asserting that your views are superior to mine by virtue of you being somehow less smug? Because my views are wrong because highschoolers have the potential to come up with the basis for these ideas? These are not sound arguments. You cannot argue that the other person is being overly smug when you feel that the superiority of your position is evident despite your not even putting it forward. and further, I would say it is unnecessary dickwaving to even be arguing for superiority here. When I asked you what your philosophy was it was because I wanted to know how my statements were refuted in your mind, and then to find either a way to adapt them to be more true, or else an entirely new philosophy that more accurately explains the world.
Keep in mind, user, that being right on the internet is entirely meaningless. This is, after all, a Vietnamese badminton discussion chatroom. If you want to get any value out of a discussion on here, it has to be through open-mindedly appreciating others' ideas and picking through them for what value they might contain, while simultaneously offering yours in exchange.

Sorry m8, you need to live. Get out there and do something you are afraid to do. No philosophy lets you bypass biology.