Have you ever come across a realization in philosophy that you would say has been actualy, unironically completely true...

That is the only proper way to learn philosophy. Everything else is monkey bussiness

I just want you to know that if you weren't LARPing as a kekistani that I would.

Parmenides's ontology and his sayings on being and non-being provided me with the only sensible answer to the "how does something come from nothing" question and I am now convinced of the incoherence of any notion of Nothing.

Plato's discussion on the truth value of opinions. It's obvious to anyone who thinks about it, I know, but so many people don't understand the relationship between knowledge and opinion that it feels revelatory.

Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction and his inductive arguments for it convinced me that everything Heraclitus and Protagoras said are wrong. I cannot seriously entertain any ontological relativism after this.

Process philosophy, pragmaticism, language-games, Heidegger on onto-theology and hermeneutics, the huge mess that are the Linguistic Turn & semiology, Girard & Agamben on the sacred and the origin of kings, the state of exception, Debord & Baudrillard on media and terrorism, the sign-value, Foucault on biopolitics and discussing what power actually might be at long last, Andy Clark's extended mind theory, etc.

Can you expand on these three ideas?

Plato's view and description of democracy.

Pic related on the eternal recurrence as an existential concept

isn't it a psychological concept? or is that what you mean

Parmenides's ontology can be summed up as nothing comes from nothing. So the consequence of this is that there was always something, that change is impossible, and that since there is no becoming from nothing to something, generation and destruction from and to no longer existing things is impossible. Non-being cannot be conceptualized nor can it be articulated through language, which is why we run into so much trouble when trying to discuss "Nothing". The only way you may be able to skirt this is through a Platonic understanding of Nothing as "what is different from x". Upon some reflection this strikes me as the best, if somewhat counter-intuitive, way to understand Nothing and problems of becoming.

Plato goes into a kind of thought experiment in Meno in which he brings up a case where a group is traveling down a road to some settlement and upon coming to a fork in the road must decide which direction is the proper way to the settlement. Nobody has any knowledge of the correct direction, but if someone picks out the right fork, it is still truth without the accompanying knowledge. Opinions have truth values and occupy a middle ground between knowledge and ignorance, which is something all too readily glossed over in pop culture when you get memed with "it's just ur opinion maaan".

Aristotle seeks to save rational discourse from the jaws of relativists by rightly pointing out that something cannot host contradictory properties or essential natures at the same time. Protagoras errs in saying that "man is the measure of all things" because one could just as easily assert the opposite and, by his philosophy, be correct. This completely ruins any attempt to engage in a science of rational discourse or dialectics. Similarly, Heraclitus's ontology of a world in pure becoming, which does not allow men to make unqualified judgements that extend beyond the demonstration of deductive truths. Non-contradiction can thus be justified inductively. Yes, it's an appeal to the sensible faculties of man, but it is also an appeal to man's reason and his ability to discern and differentiate truth and falsity.

I like your post.

It's actually logical; if the mathematical possibility of the universe recreating in a Self same state is greater than zero then it will do so an infinite number of times hence eternal recurrence. This was a Newtonian idea I think.

>it's a 15 yo undergrad has faith in math realism episode

time to kill your self

>>Aristotle seeks to save rational discourse from the jaws of relativists by rightly pointing out that something cannot host contradictory properties or essential natures at the same time
yes humans crave their little fantasy of non-contradiction tacked onto what they experience through the 5 senses, as if they saw at least one contradiction or one negation in their life through the 5 senses....

hahahhahahahahahahaha

...

>Parmenides's ontology can be summed up as nothing comes from nothing. So the consequence of this is that there was always something, that change is impossible

I don't understand how you get to the conclusion that change is therefore impossible.

If you concede that nothing comes from nothing so therefore there always must have been something surely you can still say that something can turn into something else?

Can we not have being AND becoming, like the Aristotelian notion of the unmoved mover?

>Schopenhauer's view on women
Correct for the most part. There is more to women, though- especially if they are submissive.
>Hitler's view on Jews
Jews are worse than that. I've never heard of Hitler speaking about Blood Libel.
>McDonald's view on cultural marxism
Pretty good.
>Peterson's views on trannies
His views on identity.
>Weininger's view on sexuality
Haven't read.
>The Bell Curve on inherent superiority
Compare masses, good goy. Jews pick a select group from amongst themselves and put that on the bell curve to showcase supremacy.
I think that Swiss bankers (non-jewish) are the only group that can represent 'white people', all else is rubbish.
Remove the casteless, remove the favela, remove the hasidic jew, you get a different mass.

As for this thread, Michael E Jones has the perfect view on the Jewish question.
Stick with Logos, fellow goyim.

>Weininger's views on sexuality

He says that everyone is sexually amorphous though, and he's just describing Platonic types. That means that you have a part in you that is a woman, and she has a part that is male:

>We assign sex to human beings from their birth on one character only, and so come to add contradictory ideas to our conceptions. Such a course is illogical.

>There is a pitiful monotony in the fashion according to which, on such occasions, “men” and “women” have been treated as if, like red and white balls, they were alike in all respects save colour. In no case has the discussion been confined to an individual case, and as everyone had different individuals in their mind, a real agreement was impossible. As people meant different things by the same words, there was a complete disharmony between language and ideas.

Sounds a lot like something an SJW would say

You're supposed to get to this conclusion by recognizing that what occurs in becoming (generation/destruction) is the destruction of what-is and then generation from that-which-is-not, which takes us right back to a cosmogony in which something emerges from nothing. Eliminating becoming and imposing static unchanging Being on the world solves this.

Demonstration does not begin with demonstration, which is why the principle has to be justified inductively. It's a metaphysical claim, but I find it no less egregious than anything the pluralists said. You cannot even begin to meaningfully discuss any philosophy or any subject at all without accepting the principle. I'd say it's even more fundamental than "cogito ergo sum"

Nihilism has fucked up everything in my life desu
So that

I find stoic and aristotelic thought fitting real life. What's the point of philosophy if not taking it seriously?

Then get right with the Lord then faggot.

You need to read Heidegger's essay "What is Metaphysics?"

The Nothing is necessary for the existence of Being.

or just intro to Hegel's logic or spirit.
or some ancient greek jerker who Hegel cites for his idea.

>The Nothing is necessary for the existence of Being.

Being is necessary for the existence of being.

At most I would find a philosophy practical and helpful in some kind of way.

The most convincing 'truths' are my personal ones. Like, 'I feel bad', or 'I feel good'. Or even 'I think I feel good.'

I can't find much to oppose those statements, because there are subjective.

I never read Karl Popper: The post

No

Life has negative value

my pre med classes, especially orgo chem, really cemented my belief in determinism

>letting a concept mess with your head that much
You aren't a nihilist at heart.

Your choice is the only thing that's real. You exist to manage your will. Nothing else exists. The capacity to make good decisions is intrinsic to the decision itself. You don't even need to know what the box of numbers is. There is literally nothing else on this planet. There's no other position that can actually free you. It's quite relieving, really, and its reality could give less of a fuck abut your adherence for all times.

top red pill tbth

You a dumb pussy nigga, nationalism is about being part of something much bigger than yourself and being proud of where you're from.

Procreation is immoral.
Ontic structural realism.

learning biopsychology did that for me

Continental scum

Rofl that's some immortality project you've got going there

>Aristotle seeks to save rational discourse from the jaws of relativists by rightly pointing out that something cannot host contradictory properties or essential natures at the same time.
Why not? What about the catuskoti?

>Protagoras errs in saying that "man is the measure of all things" because one could just as easily assert the opposite and, by his philosophy, be correct.
So? At such extremes there really wouldn't be a distinction.

Lol mate read some Heidegger. You're stuck in metaphysics.

This desu

>being part of something much bigger than yourself
So you find more allegiance to imaginary borders than humanity in general? Public School really did a number on you.

>being proud of where you're from.
Ah yes, I am so proud that the cosmic dice chose to squirt me out here and now instead of any other time and place. Fuck everyone else who isn't from where I am from.

That it is fundamentally unknowable if you are the only cognisant being and no amount of science or philosophy can resolve this question. When I realised this I finally understood "Cogito, ergo sum" and Wittgenstein's assertion that all philosophy is semantics.

Doesn't matter, if everything is the same then nothing really repeats itself, it's just one moment constantly existing.
That being said, I already despair at the thought that my life is eternal and death is an illusion, so I guess I would gnash my teeth.

>everything is the same

That's not what Nietzsche is saying though. If you wouldn't want to live your life in an eternal recurrence, you have to make it so that you would. He's taking eternity from Christianity and Plato and relocating it to actual, bodily existence, so that we live for now and not for some promise awaiting us after death. This is the "Greatest Weight," which we all bear.

Exactly, we live for right now, and eternal recurrence means you relive the same life over and over again, which when you look at it is the same as only living once. If death is non-existence, then death cannot be experienced. You can experience the process of dying, but as soon as you are dead there is no more to experience. So in this sense the subjective experience of the time passing between your birth and death is an eternity to your subjective experience. It repeats indefinitely while not actually repeating at all.

Have you ever come across a work of art that you would say has been actualy, unironically completely beautiful, that has been incorporated fully into the way you view the world, and that hasn't been just another fun little painting to make the world seem more interesting for the time being? what was it? or have they all just been fun little artworks that you don't actually take all that seriously? "beauty is subjective" doesn't count

You're not getting it. We can follow the logic to its conclusion and see what emerges, but it's not a cosmological theory. The question itself is supposed to bear down on your actions so that you may rethink how you want to live your life.

I know what the theory means, but I can't take it seriously because it's bullshit.

>TFW this was me before receiving math degree

>

>The Bell Curve
>What is the flynn effect?

>Lol mate read some Heidegger
>You're stuck in metaphysics.
lol heidegger is the swamp of metaphysics

It's bullshit because you're a sour positivist desu

You've never read Heidegger

>Why not? What about the catuskoti?

Logic is not necessarily ontology, but it must be grounded in some assumptions to proceed. I can come up with any inane logic that would be valid under my own system, but that doesn't make it sound.

>So? At such extremes there really wouldn't be a distinction.

The problem is it negates itself through its being the case, a contradiction that, if it were true, would pose insurmountable problems for our ability to communicate about anything at all. The dispute you raise isn't meaningful, nor is my reply, because not only is there no real fact of the matter, but any attempt at establishing a fact is inconceivable. How do you make a judgement, under a pluralist scheme, as to whether Protagoras or Heraclitus is correct if they defeat themselves?

This. It haunts me every day. My existence is very positive.

>rethink how you want to live your life

I participate in life but I do not own life. If I would own it I would forbid it to allow pain, suffering, illness, aging, insanity etc. This is why I never would want to relive life because it neves has been my own.

>being this autistic

What does this pic mean

>What is the flynn effect?

Is not like I read what it means and then went "omg everything sucks now"
I mean it in the sense that I don't find a good reason to do anything but wake up and just getting up to shit and eat
I still go and try to do the most productive thing possible, being at this moment stuying to get at college but I really don't see the point, there is no objective, I need something that shines so much that it makes me blind so I can't see and feel all the horrible and painful and disgusting things in life while trying to reach it, but I just can't find it. It seems like it is more of "letting it find you" situation. When I was younger I used to feel that way about art in general, specially music, but now is not the same. Is like when someone shows you the trick of a magician, there is no magic anymore.
lol

I just want to say that Hegel was an idiot, that's all

t. brainlet

Im glad im not the only one who saw through the bullshit and saw the what youre talking about.
Nothing terrifies me more than death being an illusion. Basically all reincarnation, eternal recurance and materialism boils down to the same ontological conclusion.

It might be 'that-which-is-not' in this world but it might be 'what-is' of another world...

>>You a dumb pussy nigga, nationalism is about being part of something much bigger than yourself and being proud of where you're from.
yeah this is what liberals claim, you know the liberals who created nations

>>Exactly, we live for right now, and eternal recurrence means you relive the same life over and over again, which when you look at it is the same as only living once.
this is false, the point is too live the exact same life over and over and knowing it which makes you sad then bored

I know Kant has been called a murderer of philosophy, but I think even if in terms that were too technical and often misunderstood he did a lot of things right.

I think he was able to clearly say what we already felt, the existence of the Noumenon and Phenomena, and how the mind will always try to go over his limits and wander into the unknown and maybe never find answers and that's okay.

>stirnerfag calling people liberals

Oh, you want to avoid suffering... Yeah, Fritz isn't for you buddy.

Berkeley's metaphysics and argument for God.

youtu.be/KfAdFKJfHZ4

He's the one to entertain the masses.

tiqqun

>to be is to be perceived or to perceive
>but my plant died when I was on vacation
>oh right God was watching it
nice proof

Wow so this is the power of communists humor, damn...

>would pose insurmountable problems for our ability to communicate about anything at all.
What problems? Why would it be a problem?

>The dispute you raise isn't meaningful, nor is my reply
Meaningful how, to whom? What do you mean by "meaning"?

Popper's falsifiability and its implications for what constitutes real knowledge

except to see me on the next notch the spiral :~)

I've not seen a single serious argument as to the case otherwise.

All of them resemble this.

my nigga

Cogito ergo sum seems like a tenable supposition.

>What problems? What would be the problem?

Give me one example of something in nature that is self-identical and undivided yet is in two contrary states at once. You can't because it's not possible.

>Meaningful how, to whom? What do you mean by "meaning"?

It is meaningful to anyone trying to give an account of the world. In Aristotelian terms, it is a pre-suppository principle than allows us to discern between truth and falsehood, or even to come within measure of these things (as they must exist in order to approach them). Without this, any statement about how the world is or about objects in the world or the truth value of anything at all is vacuous, for the reasons stated above.

You misunderstand.

My plant was neither dead nor alive when I was on holiday because nothing exists independent of perception.

But Berkeley's argument is more to do with the question of stability of perception.

surely you could free yourself from this if you desired nothing?

Maybe for a scientific account. The principle of non-contradiction is one of the worst metaphysical assumptions you can buy. Contradiction is actually the mark of truth mate.

>Contradiction is actually the mark of truth mate.

Care to explain why you think so? What is so wrong about acknowledging that actualities are prior to and give rise to potentialities?

actually nationalism is 1) taking credit for things you had no part in and 2) means of controlling people by insisting they're part of something bigger

that nothing exists in itself.