What's your philosophy on life?

i'm a believer in god. you can't know god doesn't exist, so might as well assume he exists because the consequence of being wrong in your belief is an eternity of hell fire, and if he doesn't exist there's no consequence.

if you're '4 real' read up on hegel's concept of 'abstract negation', a negation of an idea for the sake of negating it, rather than proposing an autonomous idea in it's place. nationalism or race realism has no substance other than negation of 'PC culture', which itself is a metastasised and grotesque symptom of the debate between apologists for power and supporters of class struggle

this is literally the worst and most fedora-core reason for believing in god

I'm an 'ironic' animist cyberpunk chaos wizard. The individual was an illusion product of 2D literate society. We are in the post literate age now. I'm just a monadic spirit entity wandering the cybernetic-memetic-organic hyperspace undergoing endless permutations and combinations .

does it matter?

The numeric value 8 can be achieved by these methods

2*2*2, 4*2,2*4, 2^4,4+4

They all produce the same product.

Would you want to worship a god who's a shit head? Clearly a loving/kind/good god is fine so long as you're a passable person, and the bible is just the product of an ancient semi-nomadic sheep people.

sorry, you're right. belief in god has absolutely nothing to do with the intricacies of human thought processes and nuances of meaning and everything to do with calculable objective results.

actually, i believe it's called Pascal's Wager.

also, it's pretty easily refuted by adding another god into the equation, equally terrifying, and contradicting the other proposed god. you can't decide to believe both of them, so you're caught between two potential hells.

the reason some people rail against this wager though, is because it does not attempt to discern the truth, but rather makes a decision based on the risk involved. some people want truth, not security from hell.

actually, i knew that

well, know you know it two times!

I view life as art. There's nothing rational about existing except any logic we impose upon it. If things did operate rationally then nothing would exist at all. I see the opportunity of life as art in progress, and the best art reflects both the tragic and the joyous aspects of reality, so I believe that trying to avoid suffering or pain is just avoiding a part of what it is to be. The present is what matters the most, and people are way too serious about things that really don't make a difference when it all boils down. Philosophy itself should be enjoyed, there's no end that we're striving towards as a collective, and I wouldn't want to reach that end even if there was one, life is too fun.

Rationality can only take us so far, where there exists the known there will be the unknown, so the best thing to do is love what's right around you and strive every day to be what you desire, enjoying both the pain and pleasures of the journey. We are both the sculpture and the sculpter, let the art flow and ride the wave.

" . . . I believe that trying to avoid suffering or pain is just avoiding a part of what it is to be. The present is what matters the most, and people are way too serious about things that really don't make a difference when it all boils down. Philosophy itself should be enjoyed, there's no end that we're striving towards as a collective, and I wouldn't want to reach that end even if there was one, life is too fun."

sounds bourgeois as hell, hope you're among the first killed in the revolution

Well god is something infinite, something greater than man. Why should we be able to understand it?

I'm a part of what some people call the "alt-right" and it feels punk as fuck. It feels like an actual counter culture, or rebellion against the PC culture that dominates American colleges.

i believe people are like pieces of shit
they're formed inside some disgusting place full of mass and then they are expelled out to the world
then they float aimlessly and they fucking stink, they're also brown (disgusting)
and then someone press the button and its all gone
ur brown mass of shit is gone forever, my man, good bye
then the human takes another shit days later and the new shites don't give a fuck about who u was and what u did when u was still around, they keep floating aimlessly and don't even give a shit about ur smell

>says god is infinite
>says He cannot be understood
how can you know His properties?

you can't, but guess what, if you're wrong you're fucked, so might as well believe despite lack of knowledge of his properties.

>muh sophistry

so you preserved the traditional image of the human by abstracting it into some transcendent consciousness which is able to judge things as disgusting, vile excrescence, and then dismiss the traditional idea of the human? what makes your fictional point of view (motivated, i think it's not unfounded to say, by bitterness and misguided edginess) more 'true' or important than the meanings actual people find for themselves (motivated by an emotional connection to other people, an sense of identity and orientation in the world stemming from their material engagement with reality, and an aesthetic experience built by their euphoric and imaginative capacity)?

I've come to realise I don't really give a shit what the underlying objective truth of anything is, whether it's utterly cold and materialistic or mystical and religious. All that matters is transcendental experience and trying to incarnate natural law as it appears, however it appears to you. Other people can argue the toss over muh god or whatever, I've got hours to fill. Maybe that's just surrendering but again, igaf anymore

Its a copy pasta that originated a few months back.

Right now, my life can be described as political angst. Soren is a big influence, but Orwell, Huxley, and Chomsky are at the top.

I think that societies are ultimately framed in a way that the "leaders" or controllers of society must obfuscate truth by manipulating language to maintain their position. We see this occurring now in the US with all the fake news gaslighting, and throughout human history via various propaganda.

I've reached a place of mysterianist epistemology for politics - that one cannot know the events of the world because those who lead it have a vested interest in ensuring you will never know certain things. I think it's more relevant now than before, because technology allows more readily for the fabrication of falsehoods with computer manipulation.

Language is being rewritten by the far left to erase old ideas for the sole purpose of ingraining oppression into the words we use, rather than alleviate it (as they claim to do) - textbook doublespeak. For example, sexism is redefined to mean oppression plus "power" to remove responsibility from women, to claim only a man can be sexist because he has power. This erases the word previously referring to the two-way street of "classical sexism" (or what I still call sexism in protest) with a new "updated" version of sexism, which will forever, they hope, frame men as oppressors of women, and henceforth oppress men as inevitable aggressors.

This happens with all sorts of things, including racism, fake news, privilege, social class, and more.

I'd love to debate my philosophical ideas but I'm not sure how to find a productive community for philosophy discussion yet, since it doesn't seem we'll ever get a /phi/.

thank you for bringing this to my attention

The Boundless Nordic Spirit that flows through my veins is the only substance that I'll ever need. Thanks, though..

nice, i can link you to some cool deviant arts if you want to feel even more alienated from you social peers

bump

Okay friend show me undeniable proof, prove your truth fucker. What is the truth?
I'd rather gamble.

I'm not a Marxist but I've recently started reading Marx after avoiding him due to prejudice. He was a really smart philosopher with a view of the world based on biology.

As a scientist I think dialectical materialism is a very interesting method for viewing the world and has many analogues in physics and other sciences.

I'm currently reading Trotsky's various essays and letters and he was a pretty brilliant guy. What's funny is I got into him because I was trying to learn about social realism and the muralist Diego Rivera and it turns out he was friends with Trotsky (until Leon cuckolded him, the absolute madman).

Holy shit, are you me? I've been getting into the idea of language dictating thought and how it relates to the current culture in America and it is making me paranoid. The only difference is I'm not so focused on the left as you are. I'm probably older than you and lived through a few right wing presidencies to realize the hypocrisy, groupthink, and doublespeak goes both ways.

Perhaps you are older, but I do not claim this only occurs on the left, merely it is most visible currently because of the power they hold now.

I can relate to the paranoid feeling, but that's where the existentialists have given me solace. By accepting that one cannot know the truth of political events, all we can do is laugh at the news headlines. And never stop laughing.

underage b&

Shut up, you fucking retard. Do you think you're actually responding to what he's saying? Go post about how Tolstoy made you love humanity, you fucking faggot

How did you escape the nihilist trap?

I stopped searching for meaning and confronted reality (Marxism).

fat bong rips and dabs

Same, except with Race Science

>Marxism defeats nihilism

No, Marx basically pushed the issue back on biology. You might as well have gone full existentialism.

"Existence precedes essence" is dialectical materialism.

What are good sites to debate philosophy on where people are knowledge about the topic yet open minded?

Reddit. Not even joking. I don't know exactly which subreddits you are looking for but the more niche the more likely people care enough to make quality posts.

All that truly is, is the world in front of us. What we can see, hear, touch, smell. Everything else is just the imaginations of humans.

That said, it is that very imagination that has jettisoned humans so far ahead of every other creature on Earth. We alone have the level of imagination to picture events and outcomes before they happen to the degree that we do, to plan for/around a "future" that doesn't exist yet, potentially years, decades from the present. To look at a pile of materials, raw resources, and see the tools, devices, and resulting ideas that could be made with them.

Our imaginations have grown so powerful in fact, so colossally large that many of us have become swallowed by them. Many of us are trapped in our imaginations, living our lives by invisible "supposed to"s and "should"s, becoming distraught and lost when we cannot live up to the standards we created ourselves.

So many of us spend our lives trying to live up to some imagined potential that we forget to just live, and let our lives define themselves.

We have forgotten that money, the currency humans created, is second to the only natural currency in the universe, the currency of life that humans have imagined a name for: Time.

We spend heaps and heaps of time worrying and fretting and fussing with ourselves and others and money that we forget to spend this most important and finite currency enjoying the only life we have.

We are wasting the only currency we can't accumulate more of, on petty squabbles instead of the things we truly enjoy.

You only have so much time. Do you spend it on the things you like?

>We have forgotten that money, the currency humans created, is second to the only natural currency in the universe, the currency of life that humans have imagined a name for: Time.

Is that Heidegger?

>All that truly is, is the world in front of us. What we can see, hear, touch, smell. Everything else is just the imaginations of humans.

So does imagination not exist? What's your definition of existence?

>Heidegger?
I don't know. It's extremely likely that past philosophers have had the same idea(s). I have no pretenses of philosophies in my pedestrian mind being so unique.

>Does imagination not exist?
Imagination exists. Of course it does. It is a machine in our minds, comprised of organic, chemical, and electrical parts working in conjunctions yet unknown, but it is a machine that produces invisible, non-existent things. In fact, that is the very purpose of the machine. Those non-existent things have uses to us, but we often forget that those things were made by a machine that specifically produces non-existent things. Instead of using the things our machines create, many of us end up getting used by them.

>Existence
Look around you. Listen. Take a big sniff. That's existence. Nothing more, and nothing less. A cinnamon bun exists. The excitement of taste buds exists. The aroma detected by your olfactory glands exists. But the cinnamon bun you're imagining right now does not exist, because it was made by your imagination. It really is that simple. At least to me it is.

>I don't know. It's extremely likely that past philosophers have had the same idea(s). I have no pretenses of philosophies in my pedestrian mind being so unique.

It just stood out to me as being someone's core belief, that humanity forgot the wonder of being alive, fixated on money, but I couldn't remember the name. Someone else will come along and confirm/correct. You may like reading more about them.

>that produces invisible, non-existent things.

This seems like a linguistic error. I would argue that whatever the appropriate definition of "non-existent" is, it should not be allowed to describe words with are the object of the verb "produce." I think a possible correction would be it produces "non-physical" things of some sort, or maybe you have a better word.

>But the cinnamon bun you're imagining right now does not exist, because it was made by your imagination. It really is that simple. At least to me it is.

But does the IDEA of the cinnamon bun exist?

That sounds like something I might enjoy. I have considered my time well-spent on brief portions of certain philosopher's writings that I had stumbled on, like Nietzsche, Dostoevsky, Kierkegaard, Camus, and Piaget. I can't even remember who exactly had which ideas, but the amalgamation of many of them have formed a large part of my most cherished notions, so I cannot claim all of my philosophies as purely my own in this regard, even if they are my own takes and modifications of their ideas. I have had much inspiration from the "greats" throughout history, even in my extremely fleeting experiences with them. I wouldn't mind digging a little deeper, but I can be a little stingy with my time, and only like to spend so much of it at once.

You're correct. "Non-existent" isn't quite the right word for it, but there are many non-physical things that I could say exist, like air, sound, and smells, and others that do not, like plans, intentions, and fears. I'm having trouble coming up with the right word for these "non-existent" things, but they are creations of the human imagination, and thus, have no substance, no universal awareness or experience of them.

The idea of the cinnamon bun does not exist, just as the imagined sight, imagined smell, and imagined texture of it does not exist. Ideas do not exist. You cannot share an idea, you can only share the explanation of an idea, since it was created by your imagination, and only exists in your individual mind.

Misunderstandings in communication often occur because people forget that ideas are imaginary, and not universal. One person's idea of what a cinnamon bun "should" be cannot be pointed at, smelled, or heard. It can only be explained through vocalizations and drawn imagery, creating a similar, but not the same, imagined idea of what the first person's idea of what a cinnamon bun "should be" in the second person's mind. The idea couldn't be shared, only roughly translated, because it was imaginary.

I suppose that might suffice for my idea of "non-existent": Imaginary. Whether it exists outside of your imagination, or only within.

...

>Misunderstandings in communication often occur because people forget that ideas are imaginary, and not universal. One person's idea of what a cinnamon bun "should" be cannot be pointed at, smelled, or heard. It can only be explained through vocalizations and drawn imagery, creating a similar, but not the same, imagined idea of what the first person's idea of what a cinnamon bun "should be" in the second person's mind. The idea couldn't be shared, only roughly translated, because it was imaginary.

You should read about Wittgenstein's beetle thought experiment.

So where do creations of the human mind "exist"? What sort of space do they occupy? Perhaps you'd like reading about Plato's essentialism, which proclaimed that everything in the universe was an approximation to some ideal object that existed in some alternate realm.

I'll take note of that. Well, okay, that's a lie to make me feel more responsible than I am, but I will try to remember the philosophers and readings you've mentioned: Heidegger, Wittgenstein's beetle thought experiment, and Plato's essentialism. I will actually try to look up that beetle thought experiment in the coming days.

>Where do they "exist"?
That's exactly why I previously used the term "non-existent". Creations of the human mind exist solely within the imagination. I refer to the imagination as a machine, but it's more of a workshop. All of the machine's creations are stored there, which is why they can't be shared. The workshop of the imagination is closed-off to all but the owner. We all have these closed-off workshops in our minds, and since we are the only ones who can see inside, we can't actually share any of the creations, we can only try to describe them to others, for their machine to create a replica based solely on our descriptions.

That's basically the real skill of a great Philosopher: Not creating the things with their imagination, but describing them so accurately, providing such precise and methodical "blueprints" that other people's "imagination-machines" can create nearly-identical replicas, as opposed to the "crumpled crayon scribblings" of a drunken lay-person describing their ideal form of government to someone else.

Since imagination-creations exist only within an individual's mind, I classify them as "non-existent", because until humans devise a way to project individual, subjective thoughts into an objective and observable form, they may as well not exist, unlike the perceivable world around us.

>but I will try to remember the philosophers and readings you've mentioned: Heidegger, Wittgenstein's beetle thought experiment, and Plato's essentialism. I will actually try to look up that beetle thought experiment in the coming days.

Heidegger was a shot in the dark, so I don't know about him. But Wittgenstein was known for his revolutionary ideas regarding language, and his beetle concept is basically what you said about the idea of the bun - we have one word for it, but we can never know what everyone is thinking in their minds when the word is invoked.

The rest sounds like a similar issue about language vs thought, which Wittgenstein is definitely the master of.

Ah, that sounds familiar now.

I have heard what I believe to be similar experiments, in which one is instructed to simply imagine a "bird".

What bird does one imagine? There's kind of a hierarchy and classification, where people are more likely to think of an ideal archetype of a bird (small, flies, makes nests in trees) like a robin or crow, and less like a non-ideal archetype, like an ostrich or a penguin. However, regional and experiential factors vary these results wildly: People in India are familiar with very different birds than people in Russia, and thus extremely unlikely to have the same archetype for "bird".

The main point being: Unless we are so specific in our descriptions that we go into exhaustive detail, thoughts and imaginings are purely subjective and non-transferable.

I have valued my time spent on this interaction, and I'll definitely be looking into Wittgenstein now, but alas, I have a completely unrelated exam tomorrow (History, Central America), so I have to get some rest. I'll keep a lookout for armchair philosophy threads in Veeky Forums though. Thanks for chatting.

I love this pasta

Freedom above all things

>Reddit
>Not even joking

I laughed.

In the world what exists is the urge/desire and the escape from desire. The politics (the voicing of anger and frustration in form of "political debate), the music (the pop music),the girls, the indolence, the sex and food is all part of the desire. As humans we need to rid ourselves from this since it slowly destroys our life. The people on Veeky Forums are often aware of this however we lack the courage to do what needs be done. Materialism is a lazy lie or a play with thought. It is not something humans can truly believe in, we are humans by virtue of our free will. I think people who have ever read seriously knows that literature is a cure from this chatty infectious world, at certain points late at night we realize this while reading and the fullest experience of joy comes upon us. God is not to be an ornament ever, and most of us make moral into an ornament. Good and most importantly effective (it has an effect on our behaviour) philosophy looks at the faults of man. There is a link between tolstoy, ts eliot and the greek tragedies and to many people in the modernity have missed it. Spiritualism is superior to materialism, always. Someone who dares claims otherwise is not aware of himself.

Wake up, grab something to eat, go to work, get back, read a book, masturbate, go to sleep. Repeat until read.
Having a 'philosophy on life' is pointless as it doesn't affect the way you function in society.

>lost
it's more appropriate to say that you should be prepared to lose your life, in return for taking one. survival of the fittest and all that

sounds nice

kek'd

reality and its perception is a tricky thing my friends. one can hardly say anything exists. that sounds pretentious, but considering people with neurological disorders like dementia or alzheimers, who most of the time lose sense of time and the very fact they exist. do they consider themselves to exist, do they perceive the world around them as "real"? i'd say no, they're like a broken machine that lost their purpose and is kept around because it was "too costly" to create and it would be a pity to throw it away. these people lack imagination and are wholly automated in their responses.

off-topic ish, but i wanted to point out that our world is limited and fragile and not entirely pristine and as such i deem it futile to debate existence and reality, apart from pure intrigue.

not very relevant, but here it is

I believe in nothing. All things are permissible. The only truth is what is. Anything more or anything less is but an abstraction.

actually, having a philosophy on life can help you determine how you want to function in society. there's more way than one, but it requires luck and courage. and imagination

that's nice. but how do you decide if something is true? everything is but an impression and at best an estimation; few things are absolute

Give an example of such a decision and I will answer.

do you believe you exist?

Yes, precisely because I believe it.

This

Do you part from the principle that everyone were raised equally the same way? For example, if a dog is raised with an owner that torture him everyday, let him to starve in a dark room locked and so on... If this dog kill another one, should he put down? Dogs may be a dull example, but you get my question. Don't you?

i believe that all computer screens, tv screens, cellphone screens, etc, are actually demonic illusions
we're all staring a blank screen autistically

personal truth through belief is fine, but can be practiced only by yourself. fine as well. it would be better to say that you exist, because you observe your existence, you are aware of it. but leading that though forward, it is but an impression of yourself that you observe. im not sure if im making sense, im just rambling. but if you ever experienced depersonalisation, you could imagine that belief isn't nearly enough truth for comfort. i rather believe that by affecting the world around you, leaving an impression on it is what would be better truth, as it is observable by others as well. then again, are other people even real - are you real? nonsensical questions, no doubt and no use to hang over them. the one thing you can believe in is uncertainty. anything can happen, and most of the time you can will favorable outcomes to reality by systematically lowering the infinite uncertainties.

this turned into me thinking out loud, but do pitch in if possible

irony
memes

...

I recently posted this photo on this board. Why are you copying me?

>it took him 10 years to achieve nihilistic nirvana

psssh kid