I have created a new understanding of human nature that has incredibly important applications

I have created a new understanding of human nature that has incredibly important applications.

I did not write this book because I thought I could make a buck, or because I half-heartedly wanted to be a cool and famous writer, or thought that I just had some alright ideas. I wrote this because if I didn't, I would have killed myself. The feeling of pure torture that comes with watching society flounder, and my own life go down the tubes with it, while perfectly understanding the underlying human nature and solutions to eradicate all the pointless powerlessness and suffering is indescribable. It was this feeling of complete powerlessness that was the sole driving force within myself to write this book.

I do not know the best way to communicate what is explained in the book in such a short window. For now I will post the Contents and hope that people can ask questions.

Contents:
Preface- Understanding the necessity of working with subjectivity.

Introduction- The Question: Should I continue to exist? Basis of philosophical thought in creating an existence that allows humanity to thrive.

Section 1: Welcome to Not Nothing- The duality of human nature- rejection and destruction, or acceptance and building given the
inherent structure of existence which is- "We have free will, we are not all powerful, we are not all knowing, and we experience the
universe with a biological framework and consciousness."

Section 2: Destruction and Building- Cultivating power, facing powerlessness. Path of destruction involves a lack of self-control,
courage, wonder, and/or humor, with the person succumbing to powerlessness through either wrath, depression, madness, hedonism, or
ignorance due to the lack. Path of building involves self-control, courage, wonder, and a sense of humor.

Section 3: Power, Biology and Society- Maintaining a strong society (and individual) through a balancing of the pursuance of our
animalistic nature completely with a complete rejection, and a balancing of the desire to obtain all-power and the desire to relinquish
all power from oneself. A society comprised of men and women pursuing an animalistic/hedonistic sexual nature will crumble. The polar
nature of masculinity in men and femininity in women must be upheld.

Section 4: A World Completely Off the Mark- Application of the philosophy into the areas of Government, Politics, Economics,
Agriculture, Environment, Science, Crime and Punishment, Mental Illness, The Media/Entertainment/TV/Internet/Porn/Advertising, Lack of
Freedom/Technology/Overpopulation/Overcomplication/Globalism, and The Exploration of Outer Space. Focus is in creating a society in
which people feel the most power, connection with one another, and connection with the universe.

Looks like you've got it all figured out, huh?

I am already dead, can I still buy/use philosophy or will it be a bad time to start for me can you tell me about children

How exactly did you come to the conclusion that we have free will?

Because it is pointless and even detrimental to think about whether or not we have free will in the sense you are thinking of, and because if you understand deeply that we do, you will understand people's actions at their deepest core.

I came here to laugh at you.

Based on your posts, you've written YET ANOTHER basic-bitch, teenage-tier-existentialism-transitioning-into-grandiose-societal-""fixes"" pulp of a """book"""

Did you consider picking up any fucking philosophy works before wasting your time writing this nonsense?

If you really care about this kind of stuff, My honest advice is to sit down and read for at least a decade before you try something like this again.

Let this be a hard painful lesson for you OP.

This is a cornerstone of human nature.

"Wrath

Our inherent meaningless existence produces mental and physical anguish. Other people or society as a whole can exacerbate anguish
produced by existing. The source of this mental and physical anguish is powerlessness. An individual that feels powerless may
reject the conditions that produce the powerlessness and retaliate through wrath as an attempt to gain power. The attempt to gain
power through wrath is either the attempt to supersede the powerlessness by trying to obtain all the power one can get (which
indirectly creates destructiveness in the individual and society), or the direct destruction of anything that creates powerlessness.

Wrath is destruction and destruction is power.
Wrath is extreme power and extreme power is destruction."

>Our inherent meaningless existence produces mental and physical anguish.
Maybe only for you

My "meaningless existence" causes me no mental or physical anguish and I don't have to resort to hedonism.

Now are you wrong? or am I just not accepting your revelations

What got you into philosophy goonan?

You've never felt any powerlessness in your life? Interesting. You must be God.

The wonder I felt viewing the world as a kid, and ever since I was conscious of my own ignorance as I got older, this wonder combined with feeling powerless in ignorance fueled an insatiable drive to understand everything at its deepest core.

You know what, this is really embarrassing but I have to thank you because you are actually partially right. The word I should have used is "suffering" rather than "anguish" which reflects a more acute suffering. That is not to say that people cannot experience anguish, but I was trying to reflect that due to us existing as beings that experience powerlessness as opposed to being gods, we suffer due to this, and all suffering originates from this. I am going to change this immediately.

>balancing of the pursuance of our
animalistic nature completely with a complete rejection

I'm sorry... what?

We cannot reject/deny our biological and animalistic nature completely or else men specifically lose their masculinity for example. I go into why this is bad. But if men act animalistically, then they are overly masculine and not conducive to cooperation, or building up society. I also go into this animalistic/masculine situation in the sexual realm, in both polar ways.

You should define all the words you're using because you're not using a lot of them correctly.
Your idea of hedonism exposes your dilettantism. Hedonism maximizes net pleasure, which is pleasure minus pain. The hedonism you're thinking of, which is drinking and doing drugs is an incorrect bastardization simply because ultimately drinking and doing drugs harms you more than it benefits you, physically speaking. The real hedonist proposes very much what you "propose", which was a focus on physical wellness through self-control etc. Ripping off the hedonists and then coming around to tell them they're bad isn't very nice.
Define animalistic nature.
From a psychoanalytical perspective, the fact that you're a autistic virgin has unavoidably translated into your work, you should watch out for that.

>no true hedonist argument
you know what he meant retard. I bet you're one of those types who complains that real communism hasn't been tried

Is there somewhere we could talk?
Email?

Why would someone need to read a ton of other peoples' ideas in order to make their own? I'm genuinely curious. A common theme I've seen from people that have read a lot of philosophy is that they don't have any of their own ideas.

I'm fine with hedonism connoting a lack of delayed gratification. But maximal pleasure seeking would be to seek a net positive result

Ultimate power is peace. Its omnipotence.

What is the point of your ideas? What concrete ideas do you have? I could disprove your model step by step (unless it's right) but it just seems like a lot of unsubstantiated opinion.

eh

There is an email on my website, contact me any time, I'd love to talk to someone.

The point? The understanding of one's own nature and the base cornerstones of existence that create this nature leads to power and to happiness. Not to mention the infinite applications, which I go into at the end of the book involving the construction of society, in which the value is immeasurable.

Concrete ideas? Spook.

>Unsubstantiated opinion
Philosophy should be about seeking objective truth, yet this is impossible being a human being so we have to work with the next best thing, our subjective understandings. This is important to understand and it is why I start my book in my preface by talking about it. I have gotten soooo much farther than any other philosopher ever because I do not get bogged down trying to substantiate my subjective understandings for 500 pages with bullshit. I say we have free will and that's that. In the next 120 pages it becomes apparent that I am correct and that from this understanding, A LOT of human nature can be explained, and a lot of happiness can be gained. Or a lot of destruction. It is up to the individual to choose to create or destroy whatever they choose. (Yes I know destroying is technically also a creation of the will, but it is not what I mean by create in this sense. By create I mean "Build up".)

Fuck you guys, the only reality is that we will all die

From reading this thread and the contents, I can say I'm really interested in reading your book and I'll buy it when I have some pocket money to spare.
t. poor collegefag
Also you've said here that you'll update it asap. Does this mean that it's not actually complete and your going to keep updating it regularly?

You get further because you write unsubstantiated rambling.
Any definite equation has a definite answer. All of the universe at any given moment is the equation and the next moment is the answer. On a quantum level, the only question is whether or not there is a definite equation since we cannot measure the exact position and velocity of a given particle. But this may just be a flaw in measurement - or maybe it's unknowable to us be because we live in it. Either way it doesn't matter but it's important to have concrete reasons that make concrete ideas.

Thanks for writing another self-help book disguised as a philosophical literature. The world really needs one more "100 tips on how to be happy".

Amateur teen philosophers always do this bullshit of defining very basic words in a seemingly complex fashion, without actually doing anything with the definitions later. Don't just use the guise of defining something to drop your narcissistic loads all over the reader's face. Definitions usually lead into proofs when actual thinkers use them.

I appreciate it. I first published it at the beginning of November and although I jumped the gun, I feel that it was necessary for me to publish to get the feeling that it was complete in order for me to take a step back and realize that if this was my complete work, it better be close to perfect and convey exactly what I want to convey. By February I had tweaked some parts a little and added 5 pages worth of material dispersed among the book. By May I had tweaked things in certain areas a little further and added 4 more pages. Since then I have only done minor word changes and a couple sentence restructurings and I feel confident that this is pretty much the final piece. Despite what happened above with that word change, I believe my "Section 1+2", which is the core philosophy, is rock solid and that word change is the only change I've made in those sections since I first published it. There won't be any significant further changes, or maybe not any at all.

My ideas are concrete.

I will post a little more of the material to give you a better idea of what it is about, although know that the book covers many areas on multiple levels and is written in a way that requires the person to go through stages of understanding in order to see the complete big picture.

How the hell do you think you are going to get my entire reasoning and scope of my philosophy in one fucking paragraph?

Here is a SMALL INCOMPLETE SNAPSHOT OF ONE SMALL SECTION that does not reflect whatsoever the depth or totality of the book.

"Destructive Societal Imbalance: Too Much Power Seeking and Animalistic Behavior

A societal structure that fosters and allows for too much animalistic behavior or power-seeking behavior is destructive.
A society comprised of power-hungry and animalistic people is destructive.

cont.
Excessive animalistic behavior means selfishness, an excessive drive to pursue sex, a drive for unnecessary violence, an
antagonistic mentality, and a survival of the fittest mentality. Animalistic behavior is very similar to excessive power-seeking
behavior, but there is a distinction in that animalistic behavior is more of an unconscious base desire and bodily drive (like an
animal) rather than power-seeking which may involve a broader scope and higher thinking. The two are heavily intertwined though.

cont.
Animalistic nature is not limited to violence- it applies to sexuality. A society comprised of people that follow a completely
animalistic sexual nature is destructive. The consequences of following this nature are far-reaching. A hedonistic nature and an
animalistic sexual nature are intertwined, although are not the same thing.

Complete animalistic sexual behavior in men is characterized by the pursuance of having sex with many women with disregard for
choosing a single mate to create a family with.

Complete animalistic sexual behavior in women is characterized by the pursuance of a man or many men for only their high sexual
prowess with disregard for the creation of a strong family due to:
A. The desire for the woman to put off raising a family in this pursuit, which also contributes to a long-term negative
effect in the creation of a family in section C.
B. The unlikelihood that a man with high sexual prowess will settle down and raise a child with the particular woman given the fact
that he has many other options and may be animalistic himself.
C. The elimination of the possibility of raising a strong family with a man who has less sexual prowess than any man the woman has
had sex with before. The reason for this is that a woman will only remain subservient and desire to be with the person who is the
top alpha male in her sexual past. The woman is subservient to the feelings and pleasure that the alpha male gave her. A man who
remains in a relationship with a woman in which he has no possibility for becoming the top alpha male in her sexual history is a
beta and therefore weaker and inferior to the actual alpha male from the perspective of the woman and her feelings. If the woman
disregards her sexual hierarchy and starts a family with a beta male, the partnership is doomed to be weak and they will fail in
remaining together and fail to create strong offspring. The woman may have chosen the beta for his provider status because of her
inability to hold down an alpha male. The beta is a

provider of both monetary and emotional support for the woman. The woman is the
dominant person in the relationship with the beta male because she holds the locus of the power in the relationship- her sexual
feelings and needs that are not being met."

I've saved many of your text posts and I'm sending them to Stacys on Facebook so we can laugh at you

im not kidding

This is fucking embarrassing, OP.

This post has proven you to be a total bellend with a complete lack of reading comprehension. He said that his meaningless existence caused him no anguish, not that he never felt powerless.

Stop trying to peddle your shitty self published Nietzsche regurgitation

Quality post

GOONMAN YOU'LL BE GONE SOON MAN
FORGOTTEN BY EVERYMAN
WHENEVER REDISCOVERED ONLY THOUGHT OF AS A GOON,MAN

I remember you from /pol/ around two or three weeks ago.

So basically your entire philosophy can be summed up by reading the front page of /r9k/? As in, chads and stacies are animals because they have a lot of sex?

I hate to break it to you, but most people love sex. And people are animals. The purpose of being the human animals that we are is to procreate and grow our species. There's nothing that makes you morally superior because you're not getting laid.

"Destructive Societal Imbalance: Not Enough Power Seeking or Animalistic Nature

A societal structure that aims to reject and suppress our animalistic nature or desire to seek power is highly destructive.
A society comprised of people that reject their animalistic nature or reject seeking power is highly destructive.

There is a widespread fallacy in thinking that it is beneficial to our species for our animalistic nature to be completely
overcome. This nature is thought of as something that does nothing but hinder and drag down our species into a violent primitive
past. Only the fool would ignore our animal nature because it is and should always be ingrained in our being. Our natural desire to
reproduce comes from this nature. Using biologically ingrained physical and mental masculine traits, men have built civilizations.
Strength has been cultivated over millions of years of evolution to be harnessed and used to build. Our base animal nature is the
driving force in the sustenance of our species. Our underlying animalistic nature should not be overcome. Our animalistic side
should be controlled and harnessed, not eliminated."

You need to make your writing more succinct, or find a good editor. I can sum up your last two posts in a single sentence: societies should balance their animalistic tendencies.