You're not a hypocrite, right?

Every word uttered is a lie.

>postmodernism
>:^)

"here comes"??? you didn't seem to have any problems with it when i called you a twat and a dilettante. again, you have real reading comprehension issues.

>the redpill
>I rant about blacks, women, jews, and degenerates online on Veeky Forums for 6 hours a day

U.G. Krishnamurtian Stirnerist

Realise there is nothing to 'live by' that is not nonsensical, fuck around as I please.

>Postmodernism
>Always checking privileges and being quick to trigger

Daily reminder to avoid ideologues like the plague.

What's with people thinking it's cool to not care about anything? Everyone is seeking and developing their identity and it plays a big role in their lives. That's why people get devastated when they are forced to change drastically, or obstinately refuse to change.

One example I can think of is almost any kind of sportsman. He's a very competing guy and loves to push himself every practice. One day he gets injured and has to recover. Upon his return he has basically 2 choices: turn down the competitive drive and take care, or risk being reinjured. He is forced to change his identity. And it's devastating. I've seen a lot of people quit judo because they get injured and can't do what they used to do.

It seems like you have a misconception of identity. Like it's some sort of Warcraft race that we actively select. It's much more unconscious than that, and often affected or developed by actions that are more or less out of our control.

>What's with people thinking it's cool to not care about anything?

i don't know who you're talking to. i care about many things, philosophy included, unlike OP.

Changes of identity are devastating precisely because people get so attached to the meme they have of themselves.

If they were to realise they were self-conscious nothings it would be less of a problem.

Language (and not material) is the basis of reality. Our consciousness is fundamentally linguistic and travels through various linguistic spheres. The material world is a linguistic construct, and is one of the many syntactical regions traversed by our consciousness.

If by less of a problem you mean increased suicide rates, then yeah. Not everyone can handle that realization.

>If by less of a problem you mean increased suicide rates,

what's wrong with that?

Does your linguistic universe map complexity across the phonotactic or graphical realm?

Because that has a strong bearing on whether the Japanese are uber- or untermensch

Absolutely nothing

Better to get that realisation over with than to get invested in an impossible sense of identity desu.

fuck off socrates
all that time you spent examining your life you could have been out having fun
then maybe you wouldn't have been such a dick and had to kill yourself

Says who?

>Sentenced to death by the state on trumped up charges
>Could escape if you want to
>That would be rebelling against the state
>To do so would undermine all of its laws and break personal philosophy
>Only one ethical option
>Do what the state commands
>Lawful execution, suicide by hemlock

The Greeks have more in common with the Japanese/Klingons than the Christian West.

Me to be honest. It's less of a traumatic experience if you realise you're nothing early on.

People tend to repress their teenage existential crises and start to roleplay a responsible adult in a 'fake it till you make it' kind of way, but that crisis can and often will come back to haunt you later in life.

It's more prudent to ride it to its logical end and come to terms with it and go on with your life from that point rather than base it on a flimsy delusion. Build your house on rock rather than sand and such, even if it's a shitty damp rock and the warm sand looks bretty enticing.

I've accepted that I'm a pleb and will do nothing significant with my life.

Why worry about whether or not I'm wisely spending my life? I contribute to society, and I try to be happy, but I could die tomorrow and nothing I ever did would ever mean a thing in the grand scheme of things.

Quiet resignation is the most comfy way to live desu.

>The Greeks have more in common with the Japanese

shut the fuck up weaboo. the ONLY goddamn reason you know about that story is because of how incredibly out of the ordinary it was. it was expected of Socrates to flee, it wasn't a 'lucky break' that he got the chance to escape, it was available to anyone with enough money or friends, and they took it as often as they could. suicide wasn't an honor thing in greece as it was in rome.

greeks more in common with japanese, this fucking board i swear to god

Beyond Good and Evil, V, §191

« The old theological problem of "Faith" and "Knowledge," or more plainly, of instinct and reason--the question whether, in respect to the valuation of things, instinct deserves more authority than rationality, which wants to appreciate and act according to motives, according to a "Why," that is to say, in conformity to purpose and utility--it is always the old moral problem that first appeared in the person of Socrates, and had divided men's minds long before Christianity. Socrates himself, following, of course, the taste of his talent--that of a surpassing dialectician--took first the side of reason; and, in fact, what did he do all his life but laugh at the awkward incapacity of the noble Athenians, who were men of instinct, like all noble men, and could never give satisfactory answers concerning the motives of their actions? In the end, however, though silently and secretly, he laughed also at himself: with his finer conscience and introspection, he found in himself the same difficulty and incapacity. "But why"--he said to himself-- "should one on that account separate oneself from the instincts! One must set them right, and the reason ALSO--one must follow the instincts, but at the same time persuade the reason to support them with good arguments." This was the real FALSENESS of that great and mysterious ironist; he brought his conscience up to the point that he was satisfied with a kind of self-outwitting: in fact, he perceived the irrationality in the moral judgment.-- Plato, more innocent in such matters, and without the craftiness of the plebeian, wished to prove to himself, at the expenditure of all his strength--the greatest strength a philosopher had ever expended--that reason and instinct lead spontaneously to one goal, to the good, to "God"; and since Plato, all theologians and philosophers have followed the same path--which means that in matters of morality, instinct (or as Christians call it, "Faith," or as I call it, "the herd") has hitherto triumphed. Unless one should make an exception in the case of Descartes, the father of rationalism (and consequently the grandfather of the Revolution), who recognized only the authority of reason: but reason is only a tool, and Descartes was superficial. »

Cha thanks but no thanks I'll die on the waves bro

You know nothing (N O T H I N G) of Japanese honor famiri desu

Have you even read Yukio Mishima desu?

jesus you're thick as fuck

humanism is for cucks

Me?

You're the one exposing his ignorance for all to see.

Even my kid sister knows what seppuku is, and she's a Harry Potter-reading pleb

>You're not a hypocrite, right?
yes, inevitably.

>Your philsophy / philsophical school
neo-kantian late-wittgensteinian Heideggerian aesthetico-pragmatism, and i try to work in davidson too, although of course he doesn't come up much

>How you live by it
by just bein me :)

>zen
>

>nihilism
>party as often as i can

>assuming anything other than assumptions

Yikes

ur toxic

>utalitarianism
>being a utility monster

You're criticizing living by a school of philosophy of another's invention, so what do you live by?

>Contemporary analytical philosophy
>Hold reason and science in high esteem

not even close to what i said. the post you're replying applies to you too.

Stoicism.

Negative visualization, anticipation of change, using my internal state to control my outcomes rather than vice versa

Oh my god I've been putting off beyond good and evil my entire life.
Everything I know about philosophy is wrong. I'm reading this whole work today. Fuck.

>being a critical asshole while offering nothing in return

the examined life is not worth living imo

>analytic
>kv

I seriously hope that it isn't bait and that you are at least somehow sincerely speaking

gotta lie to get by

To pretend that I can sum it up and give you an accurate representation of my philosophy in a single post, I wont pretend. I have drawn heavily from many ideas and traditions, synthesizing, expanding, and adding my own system into the mix. It incorporates as much human knowledge as I could.

It's not deontology only, but I think by greentexting some of the seeds, you might at least somewhat understand, but each term has its own meaning so instead of judging what you read, ask questions to clarify, otherwise you wont understand. Do no interpret it through your own lens.

1. Unecessary suffering is bad and must be reduced
2. We should aim to develop ourselves to the highest ability, and also align our actions to enable this to happen in other people
3. My happiness is important, thus so is other people
4. Freedom to and freedom from are important and the basis for a healthy society
5. Act with integrity word and action are one, abide by principles to not harm, to help, and not be selfish
6. Be compassionate
7. Be irreverent sometimes
8. Seek pleasure in moderation
9. Do not be a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, narrow minded person
10. Understand that equity and equality of opportunity are important and LIVE to make justice a reality
11. Protect the disenfranchised, defend the underdog, protect underclass people in action and world, in their presence and in their absence
12. Bring people up, help them, be kind
13. Be loyal to your friends and family
14. Do not too harshly judge yourself
15. Inform others of what is happening, climate change will ruin us all, and live according to sustainability
16. Seek out wisdom, understand your fallibility, and always move to think critically
17. Ask for help when you need it, listen when others do
18. Cowardice is the primary vice. Fear of the other, fear of weakness, fear of failure. This either leads to your own dissolution, or to right wing ideology, do not let fear lead to anger, and then to hate
19. Courage is the primary virtue. The courage to be wrong, to face ambiguity, to be wrong and learn from others. To stand against injustice.
20. Ill stop here, no one ever really responds to sincere answers on here, ironic because so many want Sincerity but only have irony.

>Your philosophy
I like the idea of having some universal virtues and design for what a proper life is, and everyone doing their best to follow them. They should lead to a better life for the whole, and as the whole improves, each individual in it would also live better.
So stoicism I guess? I'm not sure. Like with political parties, I can't support one, because while I may agree with up to 80% of its ideas, I always disagree with at least 20%.

>How you live by it
I don't. If another person lived the way I do, I'd dislike them. I consider my way of life wrong.
The way I live is basically stress aversion. I avoid risks, keeping a mediocre job that is low stress, low responsibility, okay pay. My life is 8 hours of sleep, 8 hours of work, 8 hours of reading and internet. I don't start any projects, meet any people, really do anything.
I imagine at some point I'll regret "wasting time" and go about doing things, but that time is yet to come, and right now I am comfortable just maintaining this existence.

How do you call this philosophy of life?

Scientific skepticism.

I try to question my intuition and preconceptions.

Fatalism

I jerk off and play sims 1

>1. Unecessary suffering is bad and must be reduced
Are you thus opposed to the punishment of criminals?
>2 and 3
How do you handle the fact that almost always one person's happiness and success is another person's unhappiness and failure, and that the happiness always pleases less than the unhappiness hurts?
>4
How do you get around the fact that to guarantee some freedoms, others must be given away, and thus governments and states exist?
>5
What if it pleases one to harm? How can I pursue my happiness without harming?
What if I dislike the hard work of helping? It causes me displeasure to work to aid others, as its stressful and tiring.
How can I achieve happiness without at least some selfishness, when a single selfish person would break the system insisting all others just help him, and thus promote other selfish people to step up?

I won't do all of them, but those ideals are impractical and incompatible. They break when in contact with oxygen and bust into flames.

The unexamined life is unexamined because it's unworthy.

I'm being real, not that there's any way for you to know for sure

That's enough for me, I hope you'll like it

I follow the golden rule and that's it. I'm happy

>Plato, more innocent in such matters, and without the craftiness of the plebeian

Is it necessary to punish criminals? At the very least removing them while we rehabilitate them seems necessary, and I'm sure that seems like a punishment to them. Follow te Norwegians on this one, their system works very well.

> happiness
Great questions. Sadly in our capitalistic society it's pretty hard to be happy and there is unecessary competition, but I think still you can minimize the harm being done, and find a profession in which the work you are doing makes others happy as well. For example I teach, sometimes the kids are unhappy, but ideally they will be enriched eventually.

The fact that pain is stronger than pleasure is unavoidable, but I don't think it undermines my position.

>freedom

Another good question. My conception of freedom entails actualization. I envision a society with total freedom actually needing minimum systems to ensure freedom from (stopping violence) because a truly free individual (one who has the ability to accurately see all of her possiblities and rationally choose among them) will be very unlikely to tread on others. Such a free person arises from an education that enables the individual to fully maximize their inherent talents, love, compassion, reason (because these are the core of our humanity) and as long as that is done right, you won't have to limit the other kinds of freedom, as most will be virtuous and kind people already.

I grant this is speculation, but based on plenty of psychological, educational, and philosophic research. I don't expect you to accept it ourighy and will answer more questions to give you a more pragmatic vew of what that might entail.

>5
I basically covered this above, such a person is a product of sickness. But given they do arise, they exist in a society that cannot enable their evil. It's not a utopia, but it tries to move in that direction.

>Your philsophy / philsophical school
scientism
>How you live by it
go around Veeky Forums telling people how metaphysics arent real, philosophy deals with pseudoproblems and wittgenstein ended philosophy anyway

>Left wing Hegelian
>By Phenomenologically evaluating my a posteriori observations. Then compare them to concrete actual actuality. Finally I synthesize my abstract transcendental dialectical concepts in of themselves into more phenomenological concepts .

>Traditionalist School (recently Ironpilled)
>Very religious, do my canonical, personal and esoteric prayers and go to Jumaa and zikr every time it is possible. Abstain from fornication until marriage. Hike and work every day possible. Considering going paleo, but Halal meats will work just as well. Yell at religious liberals and fundamentalists for being worthless modernist scrubs.

The troll philosophy

I totally disagree with you, as a being, but all the dame respect your dedication, as long as you aren't a violent right winger I can accept your misguided pursuit of beauty in physical toil, god, and not having sex (lol).

Stoicism
Always act and think by the stoa virtues and keep a night diary where I go trough the day answering these three questions, again, by the stoic vision of virtue:
What did I do good
What did I do wrong
How could I Improve

I guess I'm sort of an Epicurean, materialist worldview and just trying to live a simple comfy life.

That's fine. I'm not some Radical faggot that will hurt people that choose to live in complience with modernity or disagree with me in some other way.

Where do you think beauty and truth can be found? Or do you beleive those exist?

You are so wrong brother. The pursuit of pleasure will only lead you to dissapointment and lack of self-control

I can't tell which is worse, the OP's question or the ensuing thread.

Defining yourself according to some philosophical school is stupid and often antithetical to the teachings of said philosophical school.
Philosophy is about learning new ways of thinking/excising stale ways of thinking, not about adhering to dogma.

Epicureanism isn't so much the active pursuit of pleasure as it is avoiding the sort of activity that leads to suffering in the long run.

Epicureanism is more of a secular monastic lifestyle than chasing dopamine hits.

and you decide to avoid suffering by assuming that life's goal is pleasure. What does epicureanism says about political and social life? Also, do you avoid anything that you could consider painful, thus negating yourself from the world and its creations?

>and you decide to avoid suffering by assuming that life's goal is pleasure
I avoid 'net suffering' because it's needlessly unpleasant, yes, but I think talking about life having goals is silly. That's why I said 'sort of Epicurean', I'm not going to the old lad dogmatically, it's just that he had some nice ideas about how to live an agreeable life. I take a pretty eclectic approach.

>What does epicureanism says about political and social life?
Stay away from politics, seek out company you actually like that contributes to a pleasant life rather than takes away from it. Seems like good advice.

>Also, do you avoid anything that you could consider painful, thus negating yourself from the world and its creations?
I avoid painful things if they don't come with a reward greater than the pain, which is a reasonable approach I'd say.

I get my teeth cleaned because the discomfort benefits me in the long run, but I avoid getting splinters under my fingernails for no reason.

You think beautiful. I would fuck you with a smile on my face.

Ha ha, Socrates: the ebin troll.

welcome to Veeky Forums

None

I can't adhere nor have I read into philosophical systems of life.

At most, you could say I was raised in tradition Catholic values and the laws of my country.

Man will never be fully free from contradiction and sudden "changes of heart". Some who are honourable do and accept all responsibility, some will easily lie/manipulate.

>Some who are honourable do and accept all responsibility,

Only in comic books.

Everyone has the capacity to be honorable.

Stirnerfag, I live by it by loving myself and by busting spooks 24/7

Another one, more or less related to the thread. §198 :

« All the systems of morals which address themselves with a view to their "happiness," as it is called--what else are they but suggestions for behaviour adapted to the degree of DANGER from themselves in which the individuals live; recipes for their passions, their good and bad propensities, insofar as such have the Will to Power and would like to play the master; small and great expediencies and elaborations, permeated with the musty odour of old family medicines and old-wife wisdom; all of them grotesque and absurd in their form--because they address themselves to "all," because they generalize where generalization is not authorized; all of them speaking unconditionally, and taking themselves unconditionally; all of them flavoured not merely with one grain of salt, but rather endurable only, and sometimes even seductive, when they are over-spiced and begin to smell dangerously, especially of "the other world." That is all of little value when estimated intellectually, and is far from being "science," much less "wisdom"; but, repeated once more, and three times repeated, it is expediency, expediency, expediency, mixed with stupidity, stupidity, stupidity--whether it be the indifference and statuesque coldness towards the heated folly of the emotions, which the Stoics advised and fostered; or the no- more-laughing and no-more-weeping of Spinoza, the destruction of the emotions by their analysis and vivisection, which he recommended so naively; or the lowering of the emotions to an innocent mean at which they may be satisfied, the Aristotelianism of morals; or even morality as the enjoyment of the emotions in a voluntary attenuation and spiritualization by the symbolism of art, perhaps as music, or as love of God, and of mankind for God's sake--for in religion the passions are once more enfranchised, provided that . . . ; or, finally, even the complaisant and wanton surrender to the emotions, as has been taught by Hafis and Goethe, the bold letting-go of the reins, the spiritual and corporeal licentia morum in the exceptional cases of wise old codgers and drunkards, with whom it "no longer has much danger." --This also for the chapter: "Morals as Timidity." »

>Anti-natalist
> I never have sex

>None
>Normally

I certainly think those exist, and I'm glad you are not violent.

I see beauty in many things, like nature, art, film, music, performance, etc but also in people themselves, their bodies, their actions, conversations, and mostly in how they stand against injustice.

Truth is discovered through diligent thinking, reading, seeking, studying, questioning, and coming to understand both other people's uniqueness, as well as our common humanity.

When beauty and truth come together, you will see goodness being served, suffering reduced, and people focused on vreating freedom theough community, which empowers the inidivudal, and gives the inidivudal a shared basis of meaning and purpose with those within that community.

You and I likely share many fundamental values, but I see very different means by which they can be achieved, and metaphysics plays no role apart from faith in one another. And other disagreements on sex, social institutions, etc.

For me two things are foundational for a good society and democratic systems, good and democratic schools(see John Dewey), and people whose needs are meet (healthy food, no political repression, clean water, affordable housing, access to medicine).

>Deterministic existentialism
>confused

>9. Do not be a racist, sexist, homophobe, bigot, narrow minded person
>10. Understand that equity and equality of opportunity are important and LIVE to make justice a reality
>11. Protect the disenfranchised, defend the underdog, protect underclass people in action and world, in their presence and in their absence
>12. Bring people up, help them, be kind
>15. Inform others of what is happening, climate change will ruin us all, and live according to sustainability
>18. Cowardice is the primary vice. Fear of the other, fear of weakness, fear of failure. This either leads to your own dissolution, or to right wing ideology, do not let fear lead to anger, and then to hate
>19. Courage is the primary virtue. The courage to be wrong, to face ambiguity, to be wrong and learn from others. To stand against injustice.

took me a while to smell the bait

nice points, but yes as you said it's just a representation of where your philosophy leads you. For whatever reason or another you seem to have defined certain things as good or bad

sounds like you have a few hundred more spooks to purify yourself of :^)

semi non-deterministic existentialism

And where I lead the philosophy, as well as where society leads, and where we lead it.

Maybe stop sucking the dick of a single obscure and irrelevant philosopher, and think for yourself.

Stirner is your spook, from which you cannot escape. I pity the fool.

I actually had to sit down and think about this*1

My philosophy is ecclectic. I take the Newtonian principle of "standing on giants shoulders" as my own, acknowledging that I can only construct on top of what I have been taught. Stirner, although extemely memey, delivers a very strong message about the nonsense of belief, the only meaning being found in the ego. As all our actions and ideas are determined by belief, be it self-imposed or culturally-imposed; I try to*2 not believe in anything other than myself. However, philosophy is more often a tool than a religion. I get things from here and there, as isolated truths can be added to my worldview. This way I plan to achieve freedom of action and control of my surroundings. I believe Machiavelli to be the other column in which my ideas stand. Not really considered a philosopher by most, but his ideas about power and manipulation are fascinating and reveal a deeper understanding of human nature than that of those philosophers who concern themselves with "how people should be" instead of studying how people behave.
This reads good, but I haven't really figured out why all of that matters, so I have this kind of Frankenstein's monster in my mind, with a purpose, but not a reason to accomplish that purpose other than "Because I want to"

*1Cheapo technicqo to make you think I have something interesting to say, when in reality I do not.
*2The "try" here is important, as no one is completely free from spooks/ideology, but some are more free than others, and the goal is, as Galeano put it talking about the socialist utopia, to walk towards the horizon.

I can assure you I'm more spook-free than the typical Veeky Forums fag. Unfortunately, just like the Buddha, Stirner's followers often don't take the advice not to enshrine the teacher.

>understanding of human nature than that of those philosophers who concern themselves with "how people should be" instead of studying how people behave.

Reminds me of what I've read so far in Myth of Sisyphus. Camus isn't interested in how people SHOULD react to the meeting of human nostalgia and the lack of objective truth (the absurd), he is more interesting in the different ways people take it, be it suicide or taking that "leap of faith" and revering the absurd as some sort of god.

>I get things from here and there, as isolated truths can be added to my worldview

There are truths, but not truth. Humans have a knack for finding truths but we are pretty helpless in finding truth.

hahaha

>Machiavelli writes a letter to one (1) person in power during his time that just happens to be a humongous cunt where he just describes the personality of this cunt and ends it with "yeah you can be a sociopath but remember that only if it benefits the community and is used for a greater good"

>random nigger on the internet centuries later uses this in a half-assed reading along with another sociopath (Stirner) in order to justify his own mental illness