Philosophy and Disorientation

What do you mean? I believe I have taken it before, but it causes me to want to fade into existence and stop living

Hmmm... this is interesting, maybe down the line I'll see what happens

Sounds like something Nietzsche would push, do you happen to know which book that idea is from? Genuinely curious, I only read Twilight of the Idols and part of TSZ

To be honest, religion used to give me value, I connected it with mathematics and the overall concept of a higher truth, of Platonic forms and such, everything else I simply realize is transient and I don't feel much ultimately from, unless it distracts me... thanks for this, have you passed through something similar?

No, I haven't

Religion has been one of the two most common central values throughout history, alongside dedication to the state. I agree with Russell when he says that philosophy has, post-Descartes, been a struggle to regain human purpose and a rejection of purpose and historical value has left many people feeling alienated from themselves (funnily enough he says that the study of philosophy is in his eyes the best means of achieving a knowledge of that purpose).

Personally I have not, bizarrely, managed to internalise the lack of absolutes we face and have had the fortune to not experience discombobulation and depression as a result, but many friends have.

Might be worth giving Kierkegaard a read, I think his work would really help you out

>I continuously feel I have to re-evaluate my life goals.
>I am tempted to make a pragmatic decision and attempt to delude myself into accepting axioms that will lead me to
1. You're a quitter 2. You're a pseud.

You were never interested in philosophy or you wouldn't shit out platitudes like

>maybe humans need illusion to supplement the irrationality of the world

I mean listen to yourself and get some self awareness here lmao

>like a kind of pseudo-mysticism/pseudo-religion.

Translation: I'm a big fat pseud kiddy cunt

You are not a "knower" because you "delved into """modern philosophy"""" you twat. If you wanted you could forget all about your little "philosophical journey" in two minutes.

Your weakness is YOUR fault and by you I mean you as a kiddy cunt in search of identity not the "le tormented knower" you think you are.

And you know what, that's ok because you're a kid and so am I.

Just try starting with the Greeks next time

Sure, I looked at Works of Love, but only briefly. Fear and Trembling is mainly on theology, yes? Is there any work of his you recommend? Not trying to be spoonfed, but recommendations are always nice

I re-read this a few times, but I don't understand. I think I see what you're trying to say, but can you directly attack my ideas maybe? It sounds like you're just kind of throwing your hands in the air and saying, screw your ideas simply because I claim so. I never claim I am a "knower", my dilemma is that I lack it

Arguably my weakness is my fault, for thinking so much. What are you trying to say? I genuinely want to know, but it honestly sounds less like criticism and more like noise, haha

Bro, this is baby's first existencial crisis what you are going through. Just start with the Greeks like the other user said. Your view of things is still really immature.

Or you could just accept Christ

Trust me, it's not the first haha. I have looked at Plato, but Nietzsche just kind of destroys his idealism in "The Problem of Socrates". I assume you are pointing me towards Stoicism? And what about my views are immature... please tell me, I need to know. Do you think post-modernism is immature as well? I see your claim and know what you're saying, but I don't understand why. If you know something I don't, destroy me

Too difficult after reading through the Bible, and then histories of the scriptures... and scientific discoveries only add to the diminishing certainty

At this point I feel like this picture should be a sticky because someone ends up posting an existential crises thread nearly daily.

Fear and Trembling is just what you're looking for, trust me. The Sickness Unto Death will be great for you too

>Trust me, it's not the first haha. I have looked at Plato, but Nietzsche just kind of destroys his idealism in "The Problem of Socrates".

>Trust me, it's not the first haha. I have looked at Plato, but Nietzsche just kind of destroys his idealism in "The Problem of Socrates". I assume you are pointing me towards Stoicism?
JUST

Discordianism is what you're talking about. there is no such thing as living in a world devoid of myth. right now, you're buying into a "myth" without even realizing it, thinking it's true.

Discordianism is similar to Bokononism, in that theyre both pseudo-religions that can be used as real religions. Overall, I'd say be a discordian, as well as create your own narrative. Produce your own myths. Take your view of the world into your own hands

>philosopher X destroyed philosopher Y
>are saying that philosophy Z is the right one?

This fucking guy. I hope you're joking at our expense.
larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/the-poverty-of-philosophy-textbooks/

Thank you, genuinely

It's part of Twilight of the Idols: handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect2

And, under Skirmishes of an Untimely Man: "lato goes further. He says with an innocence possible only for a Greek, not a "Christian," that there would be no Platonic philosophy at all if there were not such beautiful youths in Athens: it is only their sight that transposes the philosopher's soul into an erotic trance, leaving it no peace until it lowers the seed of all exalted things into such beautiful soil. Another queer saint! One does not trust one's ears, even if one should trust Plato. At least one guesses that they philosophized differently in Athens, especially in public. Nothing is less Greek than the conceptual web-spinning of a hermit — amor intellectualis dei [intellectual love of God] after the fashion of Spinoza. Philosophy after the fashion of Plato might rather be defined as an erotic contest, as a further development and turning inward of the ancient agonistic gymnastics and of its presuppositions. What ultimately grew out of this philosophic eroticism of Plato? A new art form of the Greek agon: dialectics. Finally, I recall — against Schopenhauer and in honor of Plato — that the whole higher culture and literature of classical France too grew on the soil of sexual interest. Everywhere in it one may look for the amatory, the senses, the sexual contest, "the woman" — one will never look in vain."

I am aware of other ideas, such as negative hedonism, but something tells me you are referring to something else

I am very ignorant and stupid, but at least tell me where my issues lie

Sounds a lot like Nietzsche's "Creator", but I haven't heard of the term, thanks for that

This is an interesting article
I think my choice of words was rash, I admit, I don't necessarily believe entire ideas are "destroyed" by criticisms... I only mean to say, that by pointing out that all knowledge comes from the senses, and suggesting rationality was only utilized as a defense by Plato as someone unable to enjoy life, it invalidates the Western idea of "Platonic forms" which is perpetuated in different shapes

pic unrelated

I believe this thread has deviated a little from my original question, which is if my idea above is ok

As I see , you are putting the cart before the horse. Stop reading Nietzsche and reading Plato through Nietzsche. Plus you're using the wrong framework to approach Philosophy, which is mainly empirical (x invalidates y) and not as a necessary development of ideas.

>Nietzsche
>Nietzsche
>Nietzsche
GREEKS
GREEKS
GREEKS

>What do you mean? I believe I have taken it before, but it causes me to want to fade into existence and stop living

are you talking about DXM?

Ok... out of curiosity, are there any good books on the "right way" to approach Philosophy? The article is useful, but it's always nice to know if there is more source on this

Also, if it isn't too much, do you see a critical issue with my thought process so far, that you can identify? Is it simply too much to explain without me having to backtrack? I will regardless, but still... in the Symposium, when Plato approaches Diotima with his faulty concept on Eros, she rebuts and reveals his ignorance. I don't think it is unreasonable for me to ask for the same?

Haha, thanks for the image. It is not like I have not read Descartes, Hume, Leibniz, Spinoza (although I admit I still lack a great depth of understanding), but I will look at the Greeks at some point

Is DXM the redpill?

yes

As an afterthought, I realize you are talking about the development of arguments for concepts, no idea should simply be "thrown away," which is what you fear I am suggesting? i.e., Platonic forms are not wrong, there are more arguments that can be pursued in defense?

Oh, no, I thought you were referring to the traditional idea of the red pill, like from the Matrix

I haven't

You seem immature because your views are almost always one sided and definite. Like saying Nietzsche "destroyed" Plato and then quoting a passage of him trolling like only he could and reducing it all to sexuality years before Freud.

And then you seem to dismiss other ideas without a second tought, like someone who watched a couple videos on youtube on the matter and decided it just wasn't for you, like
>I am aware of other ideas, such as negative hedonism
(which btw don't take the word of Nietzsche on those "ideas", he was a dumbass when it comes to that part)

I think you have closed your mind off with what you think is a solid logic, but it has some deep flaws within it. You seem lack wisdom, is how I'd put it. Finding the Truth, with capital T, is not always the right objective. Sometimes, you have to find your own truth.

Dear OP

Read the Ego and His Own. It probably won't help your situation. In fact it will probably exacerbate it. But it'll make for a nice meme and will probably teach you a thing or two about yourself.

Yours Truly,
Anonymous

the world is not irrational now what

>Ok... out of curiosity, are there any good books on the "right way" to approach Philosophy

Read Plato's Apology

That makes sense, thanks for that. I suppose it's mainly because I feel depressed for not seeing the Truth, with a capital T, it feels like the only way, but I suppose it's just a feeling ultimately...

Did I really miss so much substance from the Apology? Will do

I think I will ultimately pursue my stupid "religion", because I think it'll grant me the sanity to move forward - at least until I become wiser

Oi! You didn't reply to my recommendation of The Ego! What the frick?

>ITT Heidegger, not even once

Uh... philosophy is over dudes

Don't listen to this guy OP he is being mean, avoid Stirner until you are more together

>Uh... philosophy is over dudes
And it ended with Stirner.

From the same blog (I'm not getting paid to advertise him I swear, those are just very good and succinct posts about the subject):
larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2009/04/02/meillassoux-i-primary-qualities-and-correlationism/

plus:
larvalsubjects.wordpress.com/2016/01/24/reflections-on-philosophical-methodology/

...

Not that I disagree with you, but I do disagree with your disagreeing agreeing

Sorry, I am grateful for the recommendation. I've felt like Stirner is more something I should look at when I've read more

Very grateful for more of links on these ideas! Thanks again, will save

WHEN YOU THINK WE'RE LOST WE'RE EXPLORING
YOU DON'T WANT THE TRUTH, TRUTH IS BORING

And I disagree with your disagreeing and agree with your refraining from disagreeing with me agreeing.

Well, have you read any Hegel at all? If yes, and you understood it fairly well, read Stirner. Otherwise don't.

>Finding the Truth, with capital T, is not always the right objective. Sometimes, you have to find your own truth.

This sounds like a useless platitude, to be quite honest family. Care to explain what you mean exactly?

Not that user, but the Truth is ephemeral and unknowable; all one person can know is their perception of the truth and in so doing find their own truths.

This is just the result of recognizing your own ignorance, and the first step on the road to self-actualization. You've always been lost, but becoming cognizant of it leads to nihilism and confusion. Fail to continue the path of self-actualization and you'll fall into utter apathy and nihilism, resulting either in being an absolute loser with a superiority complex, or suicide. But continue to discover and get yourself ground to put your feet upon and you'll be on the righteous path.

>resulting either in being an absolute loser with a superiority complex

it's scary that i actually know people like this, are you a psychologist

>the Truth is ephemeral and unknowable
r u sure

Is anyone?

So no one truly knows whether the Truth is unknowable? I suppose if anyone knew that "the Truth is unknowable" is a true statement they'd be contradicting themselves :^)

No, but I brushed with it myself and only just saved myself from that path. But I also had a lot of friends that didn't make it out, and I watched them walk the path of self-destruction.

> work hard, simply by not thinking about those axioms
>need illusion

Here's the quick answer: you're human, you will inevitably suffer from illusions. An obvious cop out answer is pic related, but really the ultimate answer is despite the illusions or realities anyone creates or believes in, they are still a part of that Universe. It brings me great comfort to proclaim this axiom: we were all one at one point in time.

...

Fuck everything OP, reject the red-pill and dedicate your life to art and self expression. Embrace the illusion.

Define knowledge. If someone knew the Truth was unknowable it would be the same as someone 'knowing' God exists, or someone 'knowing' God does not exist.

In this case is knowledge truth or Truth? Does one's knowledge constitute immutable fact or is it unreliable?

>Too difficult after reading through the Bible, and then histories of the scriptures
False, it should be infinitely easier after reading scripture; you only reject the concept because you're a dunce.
>and scientific discoveries only add to the diminishing certainty
Scientific discoveries are both irrelevant to the subject at hand and irrelevant in whole because they are presupposing.

The rest of your post is just as ignorant.
Even rationalism is irrational.

Underrated post

In that case I meant "knowledge" as Truth, that is, someone cannot objectively prove/know "all Truth is unprovable" because that would be a contradiction.

I was just kidding around, but my honest opinion is that I think some Truths are knowable, but the full picture has an unknown fraction of unprovable/unknowable parts.

Cogito ergo sum is True, isn't it?

That's the way I see it; there is one objective Truth that is unknowable to humanity. We can assemble some part of that Truth through our collective empirical and rational findings but can never know the Truth in its untarnished and perfect form.

Is "cogito ergo sum" true, though? Most would argue that it is; in this world often the only thing we can know for sure is that we have the capacity for thought.

But if everyone is running around stating that they exist on the basis that they can 'prove' it by the virtue of their own capabilities of thought, then doesn't that devalue the proof? Am I real simply because I believe that I can think, or am I just a conduit for some other entity?

>Cogito ergo sum is True, isn't it?
No

I guess where we differ slightly is that I would define those pieces as "Truth" as well.

>Am I real simply because I believe that I can think, or am I just a conduit for some other entity?
Okay, let's interpret it a little differently to make it more conservative and easier to say it's True: I would say I definitely exist in some way, regardless of whether I'm actually simulation, etc. I'm definitely a real "something", existing "somewhere" real, and experiencing it with some sort of questionably accurate perception. You might say it doesn't mean much, but my point is that I think there is at least some knowable Truth.

It comes down to representation, or rather the inadequacy of language. Remember with "true" comes "false." The standard model of true and false is if a statement made matches reality. i.e. how accurate the representation/model used matches with reality.
The "truth" you are searching for is raw existence or phenomenon. It is the thing itself, there's no need for representation and so there is no true or false. The "truth" will not be found in any language, in any books, or in any model. We may never fully be able to describe truth but we can make use of it. All living organisms make use of "truth." From the viruses, to bacteria, to starfish, and so on. It is raw engineering. Shit either works or it doesn't.

This same fucking thread every day, maybe just worded a bit differently each time. Lurk more.

Well said. There is certainly underlying Truth that is being sampled by all forms of life (or any object for that matter), whether or not they can describe it or even be consciously aware of it, etc. It's encouraging because as you say, we can still make use of it.

>The "truth" will not be found in any language, in any books, or in any model.
I think I disagree with this though, there's some spooky stuff in mathematics which seems separate from reality that I would call Truth (in a self-contained kind of way).

>inb4 muh ideal forms

this

mathematics deal with truth values, which has nothing do with truth, not truth.

dude, what are you saying?

...

That's certainly over my head. You must be one of those geniuses I keep hearing about tv. You even posted a math bubble thingy.

Embrace the chaos. Eventually one of your life options will show itself to yield the most possibilities or be the best balance of effort to benefit or at least be the thing you're most suited for. No need to consciously choose your delusions.

Existence doesn't necessarily have to have any real continuity. It's just being viewed from within that prism. Mathematics is a self-contained system of symbols and it's possible that the only constant in the universe is change.

The only antidote to the pain of existence is mysticism. To lose the self, even for a moment, is to lose suffering. To achieve union with God, or the All, or whatever you choose to believe constitutes the nature of existence, is the greatest pleasure you can experience. Don't bother with religious nonsense if you don't need to, but use mystical methods how you want to.

Wasn't your initial curiosity sparked by a desire to find a new orientation? Do you really want to go back to the comfy thoughtlessness you once knew?

Learning takes time and comes at the cost of something else that its taken time replaces, which might be perceived as painful or insubstantial, but endure and you will find your truths.

You could also switch to a different topic in philosophy, and remember to apply philosophy to your life. Philosophy is evaluation but it it also application and the intertwining of the two.

Sorry, I'm sleep deprived and retarded, read the post I was replying to for more context. They were saying all truth is tied to physical reality, but I think there is at least some "truth" to be found in abstract stuff (like math) as well. I was being purposely hand wavy about math in general because I don't think I understand it enough to explain more completely.

The picture just an example of a pretty much completely abstract mathematical structure. It's generated from a very simple, iterated operation, but produces a complicated fractal as a result. We can only probe at its shape with raw computation. But even if we're too stupid to understand it or our computers are too physically limited to fully probe it, isn't that structure always there? Isn't that a kind of truth? Maybe, I don't know.

Philosophy is a matter of time, patience. It is beyond all absolutes, beyond good and evil.
-deividas

Ascetic.House.

I asked these questions in public and was arrested for days. lmao
#5thofnovember

>Mathematics is a self-contained system of symbols
That doesn't counter anything I said? What are you trying to say?

That the "truth" revealed by math only applies to math, and potentially doesn't mean anything about the truer nature of the universe because it itself was conceived within this prism of potentiality and would be subject to whatever inherent limits in comprehension.

There isn't a right or wrong, is there.?
I feel strangly damp. I don't know where to go, i just know where i don't want to go.
Are my feelings validated, or are they falsified?
Is philosophy the right path? I know nothing. There is nothing. Thanks guys.

>It comes down to representation, or rather the inadequacy of language. Remember with "true" comes "false." The standard model of true and false is if a statement made matches reality. i.e. how accurate the representation/model used matches with reality.
>The "truth" you are searching for is raw existence or phenomenon. It is the thing itself, there's no need for representation and so there is no true or false. The "truth" will not be found in any language, in any books, or in any model. We may never fully be able to describe truth but we can make use of it. All living organisms make use of "truth." From the viruses, to bacteria, to starfish, and so on. It is raw engineering. Shit either works or it doesn't.

All truths be untrue

Truth is complexTher is no "intrinsic" truth. Merely truths, we are living in the desert of the real answer follow falsified rules meant for the aristocrats. Cultural relativism explains this phenomenon. We are only special insofar that we think we are such. Existential nihilism posits the greatest questions man has yet to grapple. The successors of this method are sociologists and deconstructionists. Read Baudrillard, Heidegger, or even Sartre if humanism interests you. Otherwise, read Plato's Gorgias, or Nietzsche's Antichrist.

You are wrong lol. The absolute which your statements positive known as

solipsism*

Thanks, i was only rambling there, i am going to read them anyway. It was one of the downphases i have from time to time.

Feel free to ramble, I'm a minor in philosophy