Can we get a "holy shit this is a pill too big to swallow" thread?

>Was he motivated by genuine empathy for other human beings?

Good point

This is the greatest trick the leftist's have ever played -- convincing people that their agenda is altruistic -- that they're the only virtuous ones

>people who disagree with me can't handle the truth

(You)

lol
>behaviorism relevant in the 21st century.

People rarely even understand their own motivations until it's too late.

Recently read Richard Feynman's memoirs, and in it he says that after he played a hand in the creation of and use of the nuclear weapon against the Japanese he fell into a terrible depression. Well, maybe you should've thought about where your ideas were taking you, before stuff like that that happens, is the only thing I could surmise when I read that passage.

>"Stalin was a great guy lads, he didn't want to just murder people, he really did believe in the Cause™, trust me!!!!"

lmao

I award you -10.000 out of 10 points.

I'm talking about the framework from which they operate

It is irredeemably faulty, but they refuse to confront this, to branch out

they're dogmatists, at least the ones in universities -- not your average "the world is such a happy place yay diversity" leftist

...

>anyone who calls me on my shit is a stalinist

What is faulty about their framework?

>posting b8 memes is "calling people out on their shit"

lul

Let's be honest, we're all just memeposting here

>a fervently dogmatic postmodern lens is a good foundation for examining the world

what could go wrong huehuehue

Please, tell me what is this framework? who are the major thinkers? What are its features?

Hegelianism is arguably the philosophy most concerned with there being absolute truth.

Modern Leftists like zizek are the most fervent critics of postmodernism's effects though, same with le gultural margsits:DDDDDD

>replying to retard spongeposters

Sex and Character

>Hegelianism is arguably the philosophy most concerned with there being absolute truth.

Hegel's absolute truth is far from being the common sense perception of the term though, which interprets it as simply 'objective truth' of the positivists and materialists.

>citing Zizek, an exception to an expansive rule

ok fantastico

>Modern Leftists like zizek are the most fervent critics of postmodernism's effects though

True he is, but his Marxist psychoanalysis makes him only scratch the surface. Materialists are annoying for that reason.

>Cohesion and restriction are a necessary requisite for human happiness and flourishing

Dude, no "leftist" would disagree with you other than possibly individualist anarchists, who are just as influential on the right.

>mfw I wrote my dissertation on marine sponges

Enlighten me.

>Dude, no "leftist" would disagree with you

Not him, but sure they would. They do all the time. Especially the intersectional cultural/gender/ethnic studies people at universities, who think category destruction is just fun and games.

>no leftist would disagree that religion, cultural homogeneity, and ethnostates are the foundation of harmony and happiness

literally what am I reading

marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/help/mean07.htm#15

I'm really not good enough at this, so I'd probably make you more confused.

Only if you define the ideal society of insane racialist/theocratic traditionalists as the only societies where there is any cohesion and restriction.

Maybe the other guy does, but I don't. My problem is just that I don't see any end point to this attempt to use reason to destroy everything that can't stand a prolonged critique.

An end-point that doesn't lead to extreme nihilism at that.

>Only if you define the ideal society of insane racialist/theocratic traditionalists as the only societies where there is any cohesion and restriction.
>building a strawman version of a conservative society to refute

Maybe if you read some of the books posted here you would understand what we're saying instead of ad libbing about what you think it is

>My problem is just that I don't see any end point to this attempt to use reason to destroy everything that can't stand a prolonged critique.
And why is that a problem exactly? It would be far more dangerous to say "yep, I've reasoned enough, time to stop critically examining what one believes from now-on!".

I'm responding to posts in this thread strawmanning what evil super nihilist leftists allegedly believe.

>And why is that a problem exactly?

It leads to stuff like this

Heidegger really blew my mind but I'm probably just basic

Kierkegaard felt about as close to salvation as I had ever been

>Heidegger really blew my mind but I'm probably just basic

You're not. If Heidegger doesn't blow your mind, you don't understand him.

on a sidenote i sometimes think it would be great to ban people here for posts like this, but then i catch myself shitposting and my router take like 8min to restart so no
what class of consequences are you talking about?

is your point that you have to allow people to have some freedom for 'evolution' or other nature related things in the system?

I don't understand. What does Feynman's feelings about his part in the atomic bombing of Japan have to do with "reason destroying everything that can't stand a prolonged critique"?

Because reason isn't everything.

If I told you that I was going to cross smallpox with ebola, and release it over a highly-populated area, just to see what happens, what would you say?

You would probably say I was insane and evil, and yet crossing smallpox with ebola is a perfectly valid scientific venture.

>From the wiki of sex and culture

we cultural decline now famalam

>Thread about harsh, esoteric truths
>People start Marxposting
Fuck off back to where you belong

Your example would be acting unreasonably. Read Plato
Not an argument

It's not "science" which tells you whether or not to release smallpox/ebola over a densely-populated area, it's your reasoning faculty. The way you formulated that example is very confused.

The Rational Male. This book will not only change your view of civilization but also change your life.

>Your example would be acting unreasonably.

No, it wouldn't. Science is based on reason, so science can't be unreasonable.

Doesn't work that way.

>it's your reasoning faculty

Okay, so prove, with reason only, that other people have value.

>"Manosphere"
>plate theory
>Game awareness
>"red pill" ideology.

Hahaha
10/10 if troll
7/10 if bait.

I gather you don't mind the taste of the steak if you don't know where it came from?

Define value.

It's true though. It's not bait at all.

You can't explain why crossing ebola with smallpox and dropping it over a populated area for the sake of science, is wrong.

Because from the point of view of science, it isn't wrong, it's just another form of scientific venture.

Do you know why it is that way? Because science has already decided that the subject, e.g subjectivity, isn't real by definition.

It's just that this thread is filled with books from intellectual giants from all spheres of ideology and then you shit it up with what is essentially a slightly intellectualized book for pick up artists

Prove otherwise.

There are numerous ways to do this, the categorical imperative, Master-slave dialectic, etc. even egoism

>Define value.

No. You have google.

>There are numerous ways to do this, the categorical imperative, Master-slave dialectic, etc. even egoism

None of which stopped the nuking of the Japanese, the Cambodian genocide, the Holocaust or the Holodomor.

Do you honestly think the pilots of Enola Gay that dropped nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki gave a shit about intellectual masturbation like that?

everyone out, the fedoras have found the thread

Meh. The closed mindedness of "liberals". Enjoy wanking over your Weininger, because he accomplished so much.

Science isn't the basis of nor the only way of applying it.
None of which has to do with leftism postmodernism or whether or not we can prove people have value. You've moved the goalposts.

I'm not a liberal, I've posted ad nauseam in this thread about the importance of monogamy and conservatism as a function of a healthy civilization

I just don't like anti intellectual conjecture from angsty millennial pseuds shitting up a perfectly good thread

>or not we can prove people have value.

You can't prove people have value rationally anyway, because all ethical systems have a fundamental axiom at it's core that isn't rational at all.

Being against something just because it comes from an easy to ridicule and somewhat 'cringy' culture is incredibly close minded. The thread is about books that will make you look at society in an entirely different way, which is exactly what redpill books will do. Furthermore, OP said he wants to know 'esoteric' shit, so I don't see why a book should be ignored just because it isn't a part of """world literature""".

We walking into meme territory now. Theres are hundreds of monogamous countries that are below 1700s tier in terms of society.

>unironically thinking that PUA ebook hucksters have any insights at all that will make you look at society in an entirely different way

lol

what you're saying is akin to say we should start reading black lives matter books as if their movement/ideology had ever produced anything worthy of further investigation

Just a thought, not sure if there's any credence behind it, but I would overlay adherence to monogamy w/ national IQ to see what kind of correlations emerge

>smug liberals *still* thinking they have all the answers

Hegelianism is presuppositionless kiddo. Read the science of logic.

this whole thread has been rife with anti-leftist literature and no one has had an issue until it came from /r/theredpill so fuck off

>relying on memes from stefan "i used to be a principled ancap until i decided that shilling for a statist like trump was more profitable' molyneux

lol

>Hegelianism is presuppositionless kiddo. Read the science of logic.

Monogamy, or at least a strong degree of sexual repression, is necessary, but not sufficient.

You cannot even write without making presuppositions.

>
>You cannot even write without making presuppositions.
Suck my dick. How's that for a presupposition?

What is it then?

...

I hear contempt in your voice, go read him.

is there any fucking philosopher out there that doesn't just shit on women?

MUH SOJINY

>You can't prove people have value rationally anyway

If there existed no people, there would exist no value

Thus, people are valuable

why did a reply to this post get deleted

It is mans fault. Because man had to breed women to be dumb, so they could 'get' them, if man breed women to be smart and able, that would lessen the chances of men getting them

I suppose there always must have been a class of men who had difficulty getting women, as we are aware of the one/s existing today, perhaps though in ways today it is easier then ever to meet a potential mate, there is a relatively large class who still has difficulty, perhaps relating to the relatively recent increase in womens liberation

this is /pol/ HAPPENING conspiracy tier bullshit

>He predicted everything in 1970
>If we had followed his extreme plan we could have been saved

It's too late.

If I don't see it
it doesn't exist hahaha
You cannot believe this right?

>is there any fucking philosopher out there that doesn't just shit on women?

only fem "philosophers" like de beauvoir kek

Men have noticed the tail ends of the bell curve are skewed to the male's favor since time immemorial, it's only natural they jotted it down

If women were smarter and stronger than men they could create a reproductive union, and actively enforce eugenics,

If men keep women dumb, distract them with shiny rings and pretty clothes, then there is a chance even the average joe can score himself a relative bae

>create a reproductive union, and actively enforce eugenics,

arent they already doing that but only in groups

Whatever helps you sleep at night Porky-san

The Unabomber Manifesto/Industrial Society And Its Future

Just read it.

What was the deleted post?

Hegel.

But as I think what I was responding too initially, 'is there any philosopher that doesnt shit on women', I believe was a statement made due to the perceived observation that all women are not (good) philosophers (or put another way, I believe it was implied, on average men are smarter than women)

But how to do we maintain anarcho-primitivism? Won't it just evolve back into quasi-feudalism again?