What's the deal with the abundance of feelsy pussy wussy philosophy from 1800-1980?

t. Can't understand Hegel and Husserl.

Lel.

Developing capitalism more and more isolated the individual from society. The "egoist", introspective philosophies that arose at the time are ways to cope with the destruction of old social relations by glorifying individualism.

Sounds more like politics, not philosophy.

That's Sociology and Psychology.

The picture is off the web. I don't give a shit about Kafka.

>Claiming that Nietzsche is "baseline sissy" is one of the most retarded things I've ever heard.
But it's true you butthurt sissy-fanboy sissy. He needed emotionally charged arguments for everything including how to tie his shoes and psychologized and made category mistakes all over the place like a literal un-checked fe-male instead of soberly confronting the arguments as is proper for men doing philosophical discourse.

>Life in and alienation from the modern world is a "marginal" philosophical problem?
To a man, yes. To a sissy, no.

>its cuz u dont like them xd
>u didnt read them xd
...

>What about figures like St. Augustine, Pascal, Epicurus?
You do have a counterexample with Pascal but where's the influence? I was describing a noticable trend starting in the 19th century which fascinates kids to this day. Nobody except that Gregory Sandler nigger actually reads Pascal bro.

What you think of evola , cause by your definition he's a sissy cunt too.

I don't think so!

Haven't read him. Afaik counts as essential reading for /pol/ so you are probably right. Not on my to-do list. :-)

"People having feelings gives me bad feelings!!!!"

-OP

check out analytic philosophy you poop. It's not all purple prose and feelings

>people having feelings
The Greeks had feelings and Kant had feelings. Whether and how you choose to navigate, regulate and integrate them is what separates men from sissies. Whether you choose to cultivate a stoic calm or go into existential crisis when I spank your horse. Whether your philosophy is informed by rationality or hysteria and vague connotations. Men and sissies my dude.

>gives me bad feelings
Sure. I won't pretend I'm immune to this mess. Probably at least 10% sissy. Thanks Nietzsche!

Do it then, pussy wussy.

Well go ahead and make an actual logical argument for "man>sissy", ideally without loaded terms.

> It talks about marginal philosophical problems like they were paradoxes of life which have the inexplicable power to WIPE YOUR ENTIRE BEING OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH

This is simply what happens when are passionate about something.

Have you read a book on English grammar? Authors act like the oxford comma is the difference between life and death.

Or maybe read a tabs vs spaces debate in programming circles, where people think which button you press on a keyboard at the beginning of a line makes any difference in this world.

None of this shit matters, but you're singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously.

>like anatomy of melancholy or consolations of philosophy were written with such stoic calm you can not begin to compare them to the insecure introspection starting in the 19th century

May I refer you to the work of Ted Kaczynski

davesag.com/unabomber/3power.html

Kafka and Dostoevsky aren't philosophers. Philosophers have also intermingled with the arts like Nietzsche did since the ancient Greeks, which is where philosophy started.

>Have you read a book on English grammar? Authors act like the oxford comma is the difference between life and death.

You are confusing 'grammar' with orthography.

>you're singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously

No, he is simply pointing out that the popular conception of "philosophy" (as exhibited, e.g., on Veeky Forums) is utter horseshit.

what the fuck are you even trying to say

the issue is chaos and freedom.

the joker, the judge and the t-1000 are three endgame examples of Problems for a free society. there is no hotfix for these guys. the joker says, i thought you guys understood the rules of the game. the judge says, war is all there is. the t-1000 doesn’t have to say anything. he’s just doing his job. there’s no easy way to deal with them.

you can make your society less free - and good luck with trying to reign in free-market capitalism, now that the entire planet has gotten a sniff of how powerful it is - or, conversely, you can make it more free: that is, by pushing it in the direction of more chaos. which means more monsters. and most monsters are the products of neurotic complexes resolved in ways that require a superior and equally illegitmate force to put down. or arguably just dumb luck.

this is why psychology matters. because what you don’t want are fragilistas. it is arguably a contradiction in terms to have an actually antifragile *society* that is terrestrial. a squad of navy seals behind enemy lines trying to get home (or xenophon’s ten thousand, or ulysses) fits this definition, but a householder society doesn’t. if you want to dial it back to citizen-soldiers in ancient greece that’s fine of course, but those days are over.

consider sparta. there was a masculine society. but in sparta you also have the krypteia: the elites as a part of their own initiation voluntarily terrorize the slave class upon which they depended for the food supply. the strong > the weak. there was no human rights commisision to deal with this in antiquity. war settled all accounts. in the end the spartans weren't flexible enough.

scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1025&context=gvjh

so stoic resolve is a good look. but nobody’s really free of the Empire today. not if you want what it has to offer you. which means being compromised by it, divided by your responsibilities to being a law-abiding citizen-consumer and knowing that

a) the Law tho, and
b) free consumption drives chaos and vice-versa.

the fascists knew the deal. that was how it worked. fascism resolves all of these problems at a stroke. that is why it was appealing then and why its appeal is on the rise now. fascism is the final form of political economy. nothing is lacking from that theory. it all makes sense. but they lost. it’s built to fail like that, because it’s built on chaos and dissipation. it’s why the future is all about machines & cybernetics.

getting back to first principles would be a good scene but it means imho taking a good deep sniff of what the parable of the madman is all about.

so this is just my hot take. i don’t mean to give the impression that i have all the answers. and it’s stuff that i’m interested in. too much deconstruction fucked everything. it would be nice to un-fuck it. a sea-change in philosophy would be a start.

They are trying to latch a masculine vs feminine characteristic onto some collection of writers they think to be cohesive because they lack the ability to critic their intellect - and are warding off deamons that have infiltrated the wires.

A swelling gland that will not invert, and a feeling that is not like other emotions, but which controls the emotion, a feeling of stoic pride, loosened like a dry sphincter.

this right here is where the rubber really meets the road. because in educating someone to become an invincible warrior you wind up with a situation where it's very difficult to distinguish right from wrong.
>inb4 right is for cucks, ragnar redbeard did nothing wrong
>inb4 even nietzsche put goethe above cesare borgia
>inb4 eat a dick you faggot barbarism rules
>does it really?
>ok no what i want is a based warrior society
>but i mean a non-dissipative one where there's a transcendent higher ideal or some shit
>like 40k
>okay but without the lame christian stuff
>why did the vikings convert anyways
>& why did napoleon think religion was necessary for governance

in the 20C a curious version of this was expressed by ayn rand, who of course ended her first novel on a conventionally heroic note.

i'm realizing for the first time that really my complaint with rand is that she didn't write, properly speaking, a sequel, in which society collapsed and had to be Rebuilt on the model of galt's gulch. one gets the impression there might have been some dune-style intrigue there. because eventually galt's gulch is going to begin having some interesting political relationships with the outside world. are there going to be refugees? what happens to the food supply? what if there is an invasion from a foreign power? what happens if galt's gulch needs a security division? or an accounting department?

even nick land has been experimenting with this idea, trying to make Teh Ultimate Sovcorp. he doesn't have it all worked out either, btw. b/c there is no ultimate safeguard against paranoia or psychopathy
>confucius says, maybe try virtue
>kek virtue is for cucks
>about that

we should talk more about philosophy and the meaning of an agoge perhaps.

one last one. relatively simple choice:

do you prefer the peterson door: that is, you have a *choice* - a long series of choices, in fact - whether or not to clean your room
>which is, once you clear the dust away, quite possibly a palace

or do you prefer the lycurgus door: the room is *already* clean and stays clean, now and forever. here's your broom. get sweeping
>b/c your room is like all the others in the polis, and what a polis it be

wat do? don't answer this, it's obviously a trick question. the point is that you have two conflicting and overlapping notions of the concept of freedom & responsibility that are never going to line up perfectly for exactitude in science. which is why neuroticism is a bad look for politics, and why theological politics (Kafka, Freud, Nietzsche, Dostoevsky) are a problem for the psyche and tended to fuck up the existentialists. among others.

>to sweep or not to sweep
>or to build in sweeping as an imperative
>when the sweeping is all automated, what the fuck are we supposed to do?
>muh basic income

>rand/first
sorry. ofc this is not her first. you get the idea

kant literally wrote the third critique because he felt that sensibility was too phenomenologically important to leave out of his theory of epistemology

amazing how anos love to leave that out

fantasia did nothing wrong
>baudrillard: the sorcerer's apprentice is *the* fairy tale

>from then on, men and machines can proliferate. It is even their law to do so - which the automatons never have done, being instead sublime and singular mechanisms. Men themselves only started their own proliferation when they achieved the status of machines, with the industrial revolution. freed from all resemblance, freed even from their own double, they expand like the system of production, of which they are only the miniaturized equivalent. The revenge of the simulacrum that feeds the myth of the sorcerer's apprentice doesn't happen with the automaton. It is, on the other hand, the very law of the second type; and from that law proceeds still the hegemony of the robot, of the machine, and of dead work over living labor. this hegemony is necessary for the cycle of production and reproduction. it is with this reversal that we leave behind the counterfeit to enter (re)production. We leave natural law and the play of its forms to enter the realm of the mercantile law of value and its calculations of force

mcluhan also saw all of this coming, & even earlier, but w/o the marxist perspective

not sure what you mean by this, please quantify

the real problem to my mind is that philosophy once it became thoroughly entangled with marxism handed itself over body and soul to revolution and the eleventh thesis on feuerbach. it had to do it & digest WW2 also. shit is now thoroughly digested

what philosophy doesn't do anymore - and why it has the shite reputation that it deservedly has - is *educate* and the effects of this can be seen everywhere. no wonder peterson is such a mega-meme these days. he's literally the only one actually saying the emperor has no clothes

but lord ha'mercy do you ever have to dive deep before you get underneath all the postmodernism. history sucks. so where to re-begin?

>back to the old testament?
>or back to athens & sparta?
>why not both?
>yeah well you'd need like a liberal education or something for that
>and like a whole fucking bunch of university departments mutually agreed not to be as utterly cynical as they can to distance themselves from this shitwreck
>and probably students less charmed by their gender options than plato's theory of the good
>and probably a civilization into which they will subsequently be hurled which is less hypnotized by the new mcrib, which is back!, and with the smoky taste of caramelized onions this time
>damn is that asa akira? she seems to be really enjoying that sandwich. it's almost like irony & pornography go really well together
>and then you'd have to fucking live in society as an excuseless responsible humanoid
>i'd rather shitpost tho
>who wouldn't, failure is satisfying

agoge tho
the machines can in2 it
that's why they will win

rant over
plz continue gents
cool thread
sorry for rambleposting

>What's the deal with the abundance of feelsy pussy wussy philosophy from 1800-1980?
It's thanks to modernism. Thank god we got over that phase.

>Peterson
Are you being ironic or Post-Modern right now?

The problem with philosophy and humanities in general is that only absolute retards study it.
Look atHe can't even put a dot on the end of a sentence, yet he thinks he is able to criticize some of the greatest philosphers and give an opinion on a subject he clearly has no idea about. You should not even pass high school with that grammar and spelling, let alone be a university student.

How can you expect anyone to take what you write seriously if you write without any punctuation, especially on a literary board. How can you respect yourself if you write like that?

i have question

how deep do i need to understand nietzsche/freud/lacan/smbdy else(?) to read girard?

also i wanna read pic related before

>when you realize greentext philosophy is the final form of zen
>because all ego disappears and there is only the process
>who am i quoting?
>doesn't work when you namefag like a fucking girardfag tho

not remotely, peterson is great & i am all about dwelling in a cave and chewing on the bone splinters of postmodernity
>muh signifier
>muh precious

are his readings of foucault, lacan & derrida uncharitable & ridiculous? of course they are. is the fact that he is being air-horned & deplatformed because of the fact that those men were not wrong but 100% correct? you bet. when he goes on steve paikin to defend himself against well-meaning brahmins does my blood pressure not shoot through the ceiling? it does. am i amazed that he is able not to freak the fuck out and lose his shit? i am

peterson is way cool, i like him. you don't have to go all-in on the man to appreciate what the man is saying. once again, his readings of JD, MF & JL are dumb & silly. that's fine. you can still appreciate what he is saying regardless tho

fuck postmodernism & infinite relativity ofc. but not until after it is digested.

>how can you expect anyone to take what you write seriously if you write without any punctuation, especially on a literary board. How can you respect yourself if you write like that?
i expect nothing. however the fact is that i consistently find some of the most interesting conversation on this board & this is why i keep coming back here to ramblepost

i love Veeky Forums for exactly what it is. a free-for-all. Veeky Forums rules. do not take my opinions seriously. i am not a serious philosopher. i am a neurotic pseud with a wi-fi connection & a little time to kill. nothing more

but Veeky Forums is fucking great

girard is easy, you don't need anything to understand him. he's not the endboss of philosophy. in the big pecking order he ranks far below the usual guys you hear about: lacan, derrida, deleuze, all of them. he's just my guy b/c mimetic desire & literature & much else.

just read what you like senpai
just read what you like
>you will like nietzsche

trust no one who makes a big deal about being an intellectual. trust no one who acts like a pretentious slob. elitism is for retards. intellectualism is fucking stupid. just read what you like

kek
live by the meme, die by the meme

i didn't intend to become a namefag, it just happened that way

>how deep do i need to understand nietzsche/freud/lacan/smbdy else(?) to read girard?

just read girard man it's philosophical anthropology not metaphysics.

Such a powerful philosophical critique. "These guys are pussies!" Idk what your actual criticism is. There is plenty of objective philosophy for you to read if you dislike passion or subjectivity. Some people believed philosophy was life as opposed to doctrine or science. Have you read any of Concluding Unscientific Postcript to the Philisophical Fragments? How much philosophy do you dismiss with this guy wrote something with feelings, therefore he is a pussy? It's easier to discuss this without inflammatory generalizations. I think subjective philosophers may be subjective for different reasons. Ought to discuss their ideas, not group them all together and call them pussies, because they had feelings in their works. A terrible argument

Another powerful deep argument. Really got me thinking
"You are singling out philosophers for taking philosophy seriously"
"NO, HE IS RIGHT CUS THESE PHILOSOPHERS ARE HORSESHIT"
I also think it's funny to call philosophers pussies for taking philosophy seriously. I doubt they understand what you mean when you say seriously though.

>So what the hell happened here?
Erosion of traditional values and creeping obsolescence of "manly men" due to technology.

Kierkegaard didn't have traditional values because of technology? I believe he did have traditional values.

kek

Ask better questions about the terms you use and the similarities you find before you figure out that your interesting questions are just elaborate cut-ups put together with ridiculous rhetorical adhesives. You supppose an audience without openness and therefore cannot accept rigorous judgement.

Yang or yin, you ask?

But it already is both.

«The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
»The named is the mother of ten thousand things.»

Stop dialectics by not forcing synthesis. Attain the ineffable through compassion for words.

"Things are made uniform by Man and unique by Nature."

Body and mind are one. Mind and machine are one. Body and machine are one. So Man cannot evade Himself; where He goes is with His legs and the ghost of His legs. And by the going and ghosting is that things end up far away.

Agreed

yup. preach that shit senpai

this is why i am presently losing my shit over deleuze. because one immanent/univocal process is the only thing that makes sense
>it's there in leibniz
>& it's there in spinoza
>& it's there in neoplatonism
>& it's there in the tao
>& it's there in girard
>& it's there in heidegger
>& ok motherfucker ok get a fucking grip

the tao is good as a wisdom philosophy that can perhaps grapple with bergsonian ideas of the actual/virtual distinction & so on. the tao always wins. always. western metaphysics is just taking fucking forever to catch up w/laozi sorted out thousands of years ago. it's why i sperg out over the flakiest of new age stuff also.

core distinctions & dualistic mechanisms: the Self/the Other, the Object, all of this - you only *think* you Have To have these things until a fucking next-level sorcerer like deleuze (or whoever) can fucking get *their* heads around *that* process and *articulate* it so that plebtards like me can actually understand it and stop being a fucking minion

none of this is to say that the Problems of Western Civilization are now fixable.
>dem spartans
>dat agoge
>dat league of shadows
>dat underrated batman begins

but yeah, the tao.

>attain the ineffable through compassion for words

check out based maurice merleau-ponty on this:

>thus things are said and are thought by a speech and by a thought which we do not have but which has us. there is said to be a wall between us and others, but it is a wall we build together, each putting his stone in the niche left by the other. even reason's labours presuppose such infinite conversations. all those we have loved, detested, known, or simply glimpsed speak through our voice. no more than space is made of simultaneous points-in-themselves, no more than our duration can sever its adherence to a space of durations, is the communicative world a bundle of parallel consciousnesses. our traces mix and intermingle; they make a single wake of public durations

all glory to the Veeky Forums mimetosphere as per usual

this right here is the deal. mcluhan nailed it: when you turn the whole world into media & communicable energy good luck holding to the real. one of the sharpest critics of the society thus produced was baudrillard, but he's so fucking smooth you still have to work around his marxism *and* his nietzscheanism to realize he's still only reifying mcluhan
>and without the catholicism

but metaphysics is *one* thing and *wat do* in that world is another. the tao cuts both ways. if you just try and harmonize yourself with the process and derive your political conclusions from the metaphysics of it you get nicholas j land
>j?

you get cybernetics. you get acceleration. you get all of that

good scene? bad scene? makes a difference? makes no difference?

metaphysics > politics, but still you gotta eat. so best just to talk about how fucking batshit crazy all of this is before we put on a trump hat.

so here's my question: education/advice/counseling/therapy. this kind of stuff. fix the state? or fix the individual? don't fix anything?

this is why peterson works. clean your room is a workable imperative. you cannot ultimately express everything. and you can't be The Great Lawgiver
>or the Hortator or morrowind

good thing Veeky Forums is here i tells ya

when philosophy in universities becomes irrelevant & apparently unsalvageable beyond repair, philosophy finds other ways to communicate what it needs to communicate. mysteriously good blockbusters confirm what everyone is already thinking.

and ofc something like this would exist

>>j?

>education/advice/counseling/therapy. this kind of stuff. fix the state? or fix the individual? don't fix anything?
Those same things plague me as well. The real problem is, those things can be fixed; those things cannot be fixed; those things both can and cannot be fixed; those things neither can nor cannot be fixed. See where I'm going with this? It's not that I want to turn things on their heads (as tempting and enjoyable as that is). Rather, it's how you take the fact that life is a catastrophe. That's why to me, Zizek is more trustable than Peterson. Ruism works for a while, and it's useful and one should know the rites, but all the good luck charms in the world will not make you be the person you aim to be, and insisting on honest hierarchy ends up where equality does. So don't imagine you *can* come up with a fair game. You ate the fruit. You ate it tomorrow too. So don't usurp the Lord if you don't like your apples.

What do you want to do? That's the question that arises from the actual Zeitgeist. But rather, it's that you're given the answer "do what you want". And as much as one can believe one's an ego ideology, God, the Dao, or whathaveyou will still act through you. So don't be too modest. Girls don't like that anyway, if anime has tought me anything. Role models are the ones that broke the mold. So it's no wonder communists hate mass production--can't have natural hierarchy where everything is interchangeable; can't get to the state of total dissolution without organization. Yet the interchange happens thanks to barriers: barriers between products. You're hungry because there are many separate things. You eat numbers, especially when you're on a diet. The you of today eats one things, the you of tomorrow another. And so on with many other examples.

The internet is such a phrenzy because of this. Nothing's public and everyone's allowed to their opinion, even OP. It accelerates the rate of memetic decay. As the generation brought up with it (slowly) reaches adulthood, things get more and more interesting. And one day there'll be only people who didn't know VHS! Perhaps we're going to find those nightmares of machines as confortable as fairy tales are now. So those annoying categories, come to fulfil a purpose.

“But I am not the owner of my own body, for I, when I am born, must complete it, nor do I possess things, for having got them, I must part with them again. The body is essential for birth, but things are essential for its maintenance."

If it's fucked, It's working. The Father shows, and light is actually a quantic vampire. That's masculinity: the strength of character to leave children to themselves. Not some adolescent fact-face that pretends to leave toys for tools.

Gotta go now, Prince with a Thousand Enemies.

>rather, it's how you take the fact that life is a catastrophe
correct af

>PwaTE
league of rabbits when
will be digesting this for a while i think

good luck out there mia familia

You seem like someone who resentfully projects his failing masculinity on Kant and gets his delicate disgust sensitivity triggered when any non-autist puts his ink to paper.

Join the technocracy and get off the internet. Its the only way that you'll be happy.

Though I'd love to see you read Fanged Noumena.

haha

hahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>Autism

may i say also that if you are Other Me from that nick land thread i've rarely if ever been so fucking pleased to have a doppelgänger
>if not that's ok too ofc

b/c this might well be the finest thing i've read on Veeky Forums and the legendary bro-fist of figaro is not lightly extended

shit is cash is what i'm saying

>Le bomb guy

No thanks

I'm not that guy, but I've been one of the guys who have come up and around in your discussions. To be honest, I'm always afraid these thread will fall into a circlejerk, but on the one side, our literature board is quiet enough as it is; on the other, the Veeky Forums etiquette has never proved to be useful; and on another, folks are always complaining they don't got friends anyways. And to begin with moot (pbuh) never intended Veeky Forums posts to be single sentence chat dialogs, nor did he want trip/namefags to go extinct and user to be enforced.

I want to make another point that came up in my head. I think one of Evola's tenets is that ultimately, you cannot form an ethos without transcendence. However, there's no good reason to form an ethos that can decay if you can conceive something that can not; therefore one should strive for an ethos grounded on the eternal. This leads us to find no such bases for ourselves in the transcient, "material" world. But this has surfaced in many ways, unlike you would expect.

- You have Yang Zhu's position which is kind of similar to that of the Gilgamesh: enjoy your days as well as you can, without restraining yourself nor pushing yourself; happiness is more or less what you'd expect, positive with an object and negative without one.
- You have the Buddhist, Christian and Stoic positions: accumulate good deeds/abstain from bad deeds; happiness is mostly negative (but in Buddhism it's a bit more complicated).
- You have formalistic or Ruist positions: keep to forms of conduct that are accepted by the social axiom.
- You have the quietist and Gnostic positions: what you're looking for is entirely out of "this world".
- You have some shades of the Taoist position: the eternal is indistinct from change; happiness is not resisting.

These are, of course, very broad strokes, bound to be wrong and posited more to illustrate my point rather than give an accurate resume. That is, that I think that the most important thing we can take from theater is not the tragedy but the scenery. Ethos is not built from the inside out or in relation, but from the outside in. Every stance takes with it the world it was formed it. It perpetuates (rather than reproduce) what it is and where it is. So, for example, to the Christian, Christ is always being crucified. It's a matter of Traum'a. So to built an eternal ground one cannot refer to discrete events outside of the practical, i.e. as vehicles. This might seem insensitive or apathic, but this is already assuming where we're going to end up; and we still need to clearly define what is "eternal", if it has anything to do with the survival of the species or death at all. Considering this, even the most spiteful French romantics and Nick Land can approach the eternal. And I find intriguing that theater is both a moment of total light and total self-forgetfulness; and that dreams always begin in media res.

Larvatus prodeo.

all your arguments are based around gender

almost as if... you're insecure... and overcompensating... for... something....

good shit

>It perpetuates (rather than reproduce) what it is and where it is. So, for example, to the Christian, Christ is always being crucified.

now this gives me the feels. there's something very profound in this, about a subtle elision between simulation and mimeticism (if not to say, genuflection). it's why *copying* sucks and every child or clever student can figure it out in a hot second.
>and also why being memed can enrage us, because we've been figured out, we've been able to become solved, we have become circular
>and why most conversations fail when people take them back to their Comfy Places - namely, themselves, anecdotes, allegories *painful* for being predictable a mile away

but this idea, of inhabiting an idea and perpetuating it, building on it, is far superior. it's really my thing also. suppose that we are in fact defined by this lack, by a gap or split. beyond a certain horizon little is accomplished by just recognizing it (although i believe that the severely autistic can actually be treated through a kind of mimicry that goes beyond language).

whatever is going on with persona it seems to continually confirm and reconfirm the fact that individuals are mimes, and even superb meta-mimes such as nietzsche and baudrillard struggle with the concept of seduction.

what's the alternative to seduction? assuming that it isn't rene girard's idea, which is no joke. but perhaps something else, less severe.

>Friends and enemies are found at the heart of the history of philosophy. We see it in Seneca, for example, who—at the center of an empire (where people switch positions constantly)—reveals a friendship that is stronger than any family tie.

centre of an empire. so indeed larvatus prodeo & no circlejerk, but i was genuinely moved by the watership down comment. i was in a cafe once where, upon leaving, the host gave me a handshake and said, 'that's for coming.' and then he snapped me in the leg with his towel and said 'and that's for leaving!'

made sense. i'm passing that along.

cheers m8

>The Greeks had feelings and Kant had feelings. Whether and how you choose to navigate, regulate and integrate them is what separates men from sissies. Whether you choose to cultivate a stoic calm or go into existential crisis when I spank your horse.
You're literally making the same "feelsy" philosophical valuations as the existentialists you demean when you make statements like this. You're making a judgment on how the human subject ought to operate in a chaotic and distressing world based on fundamentally emotive precepts like masculinity. Just because your conclusion encourages austerity doesn't make the process and problems any different from those faced by the existentialists.

Wow. You're a tryhard douche. Congrats.

>après le roi, le déluge
>c'est vrai
>mais après monsieur deleuze c'est le deluge encore!
>vraiment. mais peut-être c'est un deluge différent
>mais n'est-ce pas toujours le même chose?
>le même, mais différent. encore une fois avec le sentiment
>tuez-vous girardfag
>holy fuck inner self you speak french?
>c'est google traduction, toi idiot

I know what you mean about Nietzsche. His work has too much self-dramatization for me (like all the thinly-veiled self-pity of his "my suffering made me super profound" passages), but his genealogical method and his critique of Christianity, egalitarianism, and nihilism is great. Yet sometimes I wonder if the pseudo-prophetic tone and sometimes forced poetic imagery was necessary. Nietzsche's self-appointed task was to destroy the intellectual foundation of European thought; I doubt that he could have done it without exciting our base emotions over than our reason. Christianity was so deep in our feelings, our thought, our history: and the more abstract and difficult a thought is the more it needs to go to the source of all thoughts, which are images and passions. The soul needs to know a truly original thought before it can possibly be understood.

>what's the alternative to seduction?
I think I have found one, but I'm not sure if it's necessarily less severe, and I don't like trusting my own ambitions, nor am I sure that I can pass on what I've only glimpsed. It's really difficult to explain without actually talking about my fiction. But I think both the Jews and the Japanese were/are really on to something when they start to talk about intimacy, and occidentalists aren't very smart to simply disregard them as feminine. That those aesthetics are so often in throwing distance from the state and the law, to me, is telling.

And it's humid, wet
What makes the fiery ones fret
To find yourself in bed
Not a maid but a newlywed

I think great beauty is terrifying because it is liminal. It's sublime in the burkean sense. It's attracting while it's evidently sick; it seem dead but it lives.

Why have I always been attracted to stains, I dunno.

>i was genuinely moved by the watership down comment
I'm glad. With the risk of sounding base, much of what I'm discussing actually came from my one LSD trip. Not that it's things that just showed up there, as even there I never really lost a sense of distance and continuation, but still the peak of it was getting how beautiful and genius it was as a model for experience, it was incredibly cathartic and had me crying my eyes out for a while and repeating it for the next days. The tautological structure of it is also so fascinating: a a' b b'. It's basically dialectical.

>the host gave me a handshake and said, 'that's for coming.' and then he snapped me in the leg with his towel and said 'and that's for leaving!'
Precisely!

i'd like to share another thought, just to see if it's interesting. it has to do with memes & originality.

so on the one hand we have *metaphysics* and on the other we have *society.* now in polite society this one rule holds: I is an Other. in a primitive society (or among the very crude) this has not yet manifested.

but here's where things get interesting. note how much Society
>yes, with a capital letter, because reasons
has this preoccupation with originality. how much heartbreak is there over the failure of a revolution? that was supposed to be it, the Big Alternative to Liberalism - which is admittedly boring - and you can still see it everywhere in the west, where the ghost of the revolution is now intended to continue indefinitely as the fanatical desire for Total Equality. >but i don't want to just talk about boring /pol/ stuff

what i'm interested in is if, if the cultural situation well and truly has become a kind of Empire that this requires us to consider these ideas of *originality* and *copying* in kind of new ways. *guilt* for instance is a *very subtle form of seduction.* it's not even a willing form, it's realizing that were you to look closely at it you might draw a conclusion you don't want to draw: that if I is an Other, then perhaps the problem is that *that I am not worthy of that Other* or *that Other is not worthy of me.* either way this is a Real Problem for ironic postmodernity. which is to say, the real. only the ironic passes for the real today. serious aesthetic *discontent* with things monkeys up the works.
>we know how to be French, and we know how to be German, but we still don't *really* know how to be Greek.
>or japanese

this kind of stuff is why i get so tangled up, because mimetics & aesthetics *really skews with my sense of Self and Other and Society.*

i didn't even talk about my issues w/plagiarism or intellectual property. it's basic: we're still living with the fallout of not having an alternative to Empire - that is, revolution - and which forces normies to confront the fact that *the fake is all we have now.*
>and has to become the Real again

there is a stoic ref in deleuze: 'become worthy of that which happens to you.' different from how baudrillard stoicizes: become fatal, indifferent. that's wrong, i think. you can't really be indifferent and mean it. you can only be worthy or unworthy *of your own sentiments*, and these admit no excuses. not in this time, when we have all of these books.
>or you can just read badiou and go full maopill

so perhaps it is the case that people are on the one hand *required to set an example* and yet, on the other, knowing that any example worth setting is the one that can't be followed.

if the history of civilization doesn't turn out to be the history of aesthetics in the end i'll eat my hat. and you're right, true beauty *is* horrifying to confirmed memers. beautiful things, besides being beautiful, can also remind you of how horrible you are.

Philosophy unchecked by the poet inevitably devolves into the incoherent jargon hell of the post-structuralist or the uninteresting scientism of the positivist.

there is one other exception: the ultimate narcissist. for some there *is* no Other worthy of the I, they are immune to psychoanalysis
>or, as lacan discovered, they are simply from japan

but *heroic* narcissism is what the greeks were all about. nowadays we prefer to project ourselves: onto women, onto superheroes, onto virtual identities, onto the feeling of being in and among massive crowds beholden to Spectacle. this is what warshow sniffed out as a critic: that to attempt to lose oneself in a crowd was to find oneself in an even worse way. baudrillard tried this too in his ultra-cynicism. he didn't seem happy.

deleuze doesn't seem happy either, but he also doesn't seem *mystified* by the procession of simulacra. because there wasn't, in the end, a procession, but a flux; and the phenomena he was looking at couldn't all be reduced a single type - the simulacra - because he wasn't looking at it with a properly wide-angle lens.

i love baudrillard for being both the poster-boy for postmodern obscurantism *and* its most tortured observer. but the deal isn't reality/simulacrum. it's chaos and more chaos.

which is not a crazy place to start all over from, really. on mutual and uncommon ground. whether it's art or science or philosophy.

the question isn't about *law* - the Law is annihilating - but it might be about *etiquette.* we know we are no heroes, or angels. we don't even mind being told this. what offends about postmodernity is that we are continually being reminded of what we are *not* when it is palpably obvious that we are, nevertheless, something, and whatever the fuck it is it's interesting as hell.

so in terms of rebuilding civilization, i say we get down and dirty with a nice spartan agoge to get properly un-degenerated. but before we get to the fun parts of murdering our own slaves in the night, maybe an interlude with a japanese tea ceremony would be a better look for the contemplation of a few ego-blasting koans and a buddhist monk or two to sort out that ego. culture - the very coolest aspects of it, tried & true mimetic practice - as regulating processes for the ol' libido. because while baudrillard is right and you *can* rob a bank with a plastic gun and actually get arrested, you *can't* - or shouldn't - be able to fool Lycurgus or Dogen with similar trickery.
>even tho lycurgus did famously say, Stealing Is Good
>what did he mean by this?
>just that old-fashioned Greek cunning: it's not breaking the Law unless you get caught
>damn he was clever

this is, of course, assuming that just going to church, which worked just fine for a while, is no longer a sufficiently sexy option to attract the Leaders of Tomorrow. jesus is such a downer, even when we have JBP to make it interesting.

well okay then. tea and spartan agoge should do the trick for millennial postmodern basketcases. because pomo literary criticism applied to *texts* is fine but as for *lived social experiences* being a hipster retard will lead to *shame* and *embarrassment* - and that is i think the point.

Do you think a main point to all this, all these concerns and topics and situations is: creating real long lasting solutions, eliminating well'ly argued to be problems?

Would that be the end of the need for philosophy? Or at least these 'semi philosophical'(/socio/economic/political) topics?

I dont want to consider and worry about all the problems of the world anymore, I just want all the problems to be stopped, all the unnecessary suffering and complaining to be stopped. Is that not kind of the point?

and, fwiw, capitalism just makes a lot more sense as planetary energy transfer, with mass culture is its forward arm. the matrix is real but at the same time there's no escape from it *except via aesthetics.* you can always ask for something more beautiful, interesting, and fun.

aesthetics were how fascism worked, and anti-aesthetics is how socialism works. the romanticism of war on the one hand and the romance of critique on the other. to be able to operate in the middle is a good look, but man it's hard to stay on the bicycle. there one runs the risk of becoming a cynic, or a dilettante. so what you have to do, i suppose, is either be a cynic so smooth that nobody notices, or a dilettante so charming that nobody cares. either way it's all social/virtual. the real pain in the ass is that, even in spite of all of that, the desire for *escape* never really goes away; but knowing that there is nowhere to escape to is also necessary. perhaps learning how to live anonymously in such a society is the ultimate form of escape act; you just learn how to escape being a monad who sticks out, the one who disrupts the game with the unanswerable question. sort of like the great gatsby, perhaps. or vanity fair.

not only do philosophers not know how to dance, they also don't know how to dress. or be conscientiously unphilosophical. whatever the situation, it's definitely not about the Law anymore. or the Revolution. a universal (and accelerating) capitalism makes everything immanent, and if you can learn anything from philosophy it's how to be able to live in that without needing to re-instantiate the third reich or the soviet union while not being a boring neurotic pleb by default.

fucking hell. the things you have to think in this world just to pass for normal.

>Do you think a main point to all this, all these concerns and topics and situations is: creating real long lasting solutions, eliminating well'ly argued to be problems?
create good *people* and they'll find a way to band together. losing the idea of Muh Masses would be a good start. cultivate the individual and let them find their others, i'd say.

>Would that be the end of the need for philosophy? of a certain kind. we *should* understand ourselves as being economic beings, but not *exclusively* economic. fascism & socialism both derive ultimately from liberalism & the myth of the individual wholly anterior to society. *that* is what has to go. for better or for worse we're all in this thing together. butterfly effects & energy fields. i can't see it any other way. we all have brains.

>I just want all the problems to be stopped, all the unnecessary suffering and complaining to be stopped. Is that not kind of the point?
me too. but unfortunately i don't think it can be stopped without some measure of intense worrying so at least you can have some sense of what you consistently believe. consistency amidst chaos is a good look.

it's easier to stay on the bicycle when it is moving fast. if you go at it tentatively, you'll fall over.

acceleration.

>you just learn how to escape being a monad who sticks out, the one who disrupts the game with the unanswerable question

i should add here that you can expect to be surrounded by a bombardment of other people *continually* asking unanswerable questions. so maybe there is a kind of a use for philosophy after all: letting flies out of bottles. to whom one feels a strange moral obligation
>that's just fucking desire & fear you dip. don't give yourself any ideas
>well hello there inner self
>hello

at least that's *one* thing it can do. say what you will about the failure of philosophers to fix society, they definitely understand existential psychotherapy. maybe that's all this is. that much accomplished what is left but exactly what socrates says to do: lie on the grass and praise the gods.

true, good point

pic rel is not rel, just a cozy image
>unless it's some gnostic shit
>could very well be i suppose

do you have a throw away email I can email you at?

>me too. but unfortunately i don't think it can be stopped without some measure of intense worrying

Ok and worrying has brought to the solutions of:
>create good *people* and they'll find a way to band together. losing the idea of Muh Masses would be a good start. cultivate the individual and let them find their others, i'd say.

That has already been the case, the problem is not good bands of people, that exists in great numbers. Isnt the problem, not good people, and not well people? And potentially not good people, with power?

Ahhh, so this is how getting a piece of someone else's mind is like? Thanks for putting me on the receiving end for once.

Now let's see...

What's being original? In the beginning, original was that which talked from the origin, and likewise the author was the one that talked about was legitimate. But original became what is an origin, and the author the boon of legitimacy. Since Barthes though, this can't be the case for us anymore.

youtube.com/watch?v=Cak8OW5b_5A

Let me rephrase this:
First part: "What you say is an Other is my Own. And because it is my Own, I'll be 'wrong' (unethical) when dealing with it. But that isn't because I'm being 'evil' but because me and my Own aren't mediated. Because of that I can give anything for it, even my self."
Now what do we price more, to see ourselves become good or to not be seen by society? Pride or greed?

Second part is easier: "There's value in being true. There's value in being useful. But being fake and parasitical presents no value; its value, unlike the others, is a positive element. Its value, for being forced, because there's an original, once outed as a fake, lies only in *its very existence*. (i.e. it's hypervalue.)"

So how do these two relate?

"The claiming of your Own is illegitimate. It can only be made by breaking the law. It is neither true nor useful. It's not original in either sense. Therefore it has value only by virtue of *being*. It is a positive, extraneous, unneeded, impertinent element."
So one can't find a right to do anything. And one can't find himself worthy of anything. One can't pretend to have dignity, be dignified. There's no chance of redemption or return. The Other's been crushed completely. Nature, the Chinese Ziren which is what is born, rather than the Natura which is what one is born with, cannot set examples; it makes men crooked.

Irony can't even dare to this. The cruel honesty I was talking about, not a brutal honesty, not a childish or primitive honesty, the honesty that believes it ALL, every statement to be sincere; that is this. It doesn't say, "I have some power or other which guarantees victory." It says, "You win, and so you die; you killed me, but who did you really hit? With my blood on your hands, you're just like me... and I was the good guy all along. You've given me the conclusion you wanted so much." When it hears nigger it laughs not at the taboo, but at the actual tragedy. Everything it has is stolen. It never forgets. It never forgives. And in that alone it rejoices. It's become the invading element, the Alien God to the world without a Demiurge. Its stars are black, its abyss is white.

i think the monk/sage/zen master/prophet wandering in the desert kind of "philosopher" is the ideal archetype, which is contradistinction to the socratic philosopher of logos who engages in dialogue and the polis and whose modern manifestation is probably the public intellectual. who then attempts to fix society and fails but is still listened to because after all when the doctor has failed we still want priest on our deathbeds.

fix thyself first. and maybe you can fix others. but even if you can't, staring into the desert expanse is worthwhile in itself.

ofc in this age of mass commodification this fixing of oneself comes at a hefty economic cost. i suppose this is why i have a (probably misguided) aristocratic nostalgia since you had slaves to do all your work and life was 90% leisure 10% go die in battle for glory.

i don't. i folded a bunch of my old ones up a while back.
>b/c i was not expecting to Veeky Forums this hard

is it something urgent? given how ridiculously unencumbered i have become in disobeying the usual rules of propriety/blogrolling yet another thread whatever you're thinking surely can't be too interesting to share here.

i'll get a blog eventually once i work out the girardfag unified feels theory of space, time and memery. for now i'd prefer to keep it Veeky Forums tho.

>the problem is not good bands of people, that exists in great numbers. Isnt the problem, not good people, and not well people? And potentially not good people, with power?
the problem is *madness.* just generalized insanity. lack of self-perception. economics, of course, prevents people from being able to un-spook themselves of a lot of stuff. that's obviously the number one thing.

philosophers can't really solve the problems of the world b/c the real world doesn't work as analytic scenarios do. in an analytic scenario lacan can remove thorns from the sphinx's paw. in the real world the world itself is the sphinx thrashing wildly. and there we basically have to comport ourselves to this situation, i think.

pic related is my evil alter ego, the Hortator, Who Gives The Answers. there are no answers and i hate this being. this is the me i really don't want to be, but who i become when i become Full of Advice. the Hortator, the One Who Speaks for the Crisis. i really don't want to be that guy. the Hortator is to the girardfag what Bane is to Batman.

better to be something that doesn't speak then to Society but to individuals, and *as* an individual, and not as something defined by a relationship to Das Man. not committing, in other words, the heideggerian fallacy
>even though heidegger is mostly cool

(cont'd)

The importantance of philosophy, turned into science. How do we use knowledge to improve the world and life. To build space ships and robots, and ski resorts and bullet trains, and how do we make more and better, faster, stronger, and ai, singularity stuff.

to put it most simply, its all about quantity and quality. The thing is, as the populations always grow, thats more quantity, wanting more quality. Can lead to more problems.

its difficult to imagine what the world might be like in 30-40 years. It could be relatively the same, with some minor extreme changes. (partly it will almost always be relatively the same, in terms of natural landscape... kinda sorta, but the human world).

The past 100 years things have changed quite drastically, car styles, building styles, internet, abilities, efficiencies, engines, motors, energy technology, manpower, skill power, 'development' is very real.

So how much can things really change, and how much of the masses will be left out.

I believe I understand your alter ego, I have a similar relation with such.

I think it is a coping mechanism, a sort of potentially innocent or necessary defeatism. When you have expectations, beliefs, ideals, desires, beliefs of right and wrong, and see the world does not match, instead of making your self crazy you have to take some sort of break, and accept the imperfection. Instead of letting the infinite ill problems of the world infinitely illy affect you, one has to say, this must be acceptable, at least for the time being, and for someone potentially so passionate, potentially caring about the situations of the world, about people, suffering of the world, one might call this state of being, an evil state of being, or their evil alter ego... maybe.

Maybe it also is a real, part of us, maybe a true, maybe truer, maybe truest. maybe it is simply the angel and devil on the shoulder. A ying yang of selfishness and selflessness

>Ahhh, so this is how getting a piece of someone else's mind is like? Thanks for putting me on the receiving end for once.
telepathy isn't so crazy an idea when you think about it. we just have to use this old-fashioned tech for now

>originality
so there's at least two senses of this that i understand: the heidegger option, and the deleuze option. being heideggerian means revealing; but this is sort of to put Being under quarantine now and forever. deleuze makes more sense because it's *riskier.* can't be sentimental w/him about poetry; shit, you can't even write arch & seductive baudrillardian critique. it's all about machines and chaos. which i think is undoubtedly the way forward. but we can pour one out for heidegger now and again also.

>Now what do we price more, to see ourselves become good or to not be seen by society? Pride or greed?
sadly i think the point where this distinction matters is rarely thought through as interestingly as you have. i see it in terms of a hyper-aware ressentiment (i ain't got it!) or or a blind & stupid satisfaction (i got it!) that forgets itself. i'm more into wistful pining & longing
>but why tho
>good question actually

i just see it all as mimetic. if you perceive your society to be good, then being fulfilled by it won't register to you as greedy, but necessary; and getting what you want from it *may* be pride but you might understand it as being *virtue* also. it's very rare for us to grasp pride & greed *in the act of sensing these things,* i would say. and sensing them *after* the fact when things have gone astray as guilt changes what they are. there's room here for bergson in terms of how we think about how we felt about event X & all of this. humans are weird like that
>so i mostly futurize & dwell in paranoia
>b/c hyperstition makes it real

>So one can't find a right to do anything. And one can't find himself worthy of anything. One can't pretend to have dignity, be dignified. There's no chance of redemption or return. The Other's been crushed completely. Nature, the Chinese Ziren which is what is born, rather than the Natura which is what one is born with, cannot set examples; it makes men crooked.
pretty sure i agree with all of this

>Everything it has is stolen. It never forgets. It never forgives. And in that alone it rejoices. It's become the invading element, the Alien God to the world without a Demiurge. Its stars are black, its abyss is white.
so a kind of superego? that which enjoys seeing us fail? sounds about right. but ofc it's more complicated than this also, b/c we can resist these feelings, double down on them, take pleasure and so on.

perfect honesty is not only cruel to us, it's cruel to others. analytical scenarios aside we *don't* say everything we are feeling b/c my god, it would be devastating. but again i think this is the interesting thing about zizek's project; find the ideology and maybe you can expose the hilarious solipsistic madness there.

(cont'd)

>philosophers can't really solve the problems of the world b/c the real world doesn't work as analytic scenarios do.
This gets to the crux of capitalism, socialism, communism stuff.

The latter being the attempt of simple solutions. Capitalism solves this via welfare. If everyone is guaranteed to have their basic living needs met, there are no such thing as problems. There is nothing to complain about. Carry on, with your attempts at capitalizing.

Which is why those philosophers/social analyzer writers of the 20s, 30s, 40s etc some of who you read and relay, were quick to say 'communism is the solution!', the problem is human suffering due to first and foremost needs, secondary, wants.

And why people now adays say 'social communism/marxism', 'booo welfare state'.

It comes down to, population, quantity and quality, resources placement and scarcity, infrastructure, groups/communities/corporations/families/teams/borders, who can potentially have how many children, taxs, laws

Then there is: the more people that exist, the more needs there are, and wants.

People trying to parse the new idea of subjectivity until the postmodernists took objectivity to its limits and introduced deadpan as a philosophical position

also, that better not have been stirner you were quoting at me. i read him a while ago and iirc loathed the man. perhaps it was rousseau.

anyways.

>i think the monk/sage/zen master/prophet wandering in the desert kind of "philosopher" is the ideal archetype, which is contradistinction to the socratic philosopher of logos who engages in dialogue and the polis and whose modern manifestation is probably the public intellectual. who then attempts to fix society and fails but is still listened to because after all when the doctor has failed we still want priest on our deathbeds.
i agree. castaneda's shaman resonates with me. sometimes i think heraclitus is boss af. def always laozi & confucius. fixing society is a problem though; you either need a kind of Imperial Emanence (which works i guess if you have it) or to be a partisan. but i dislike partisans and i am not likely to be the Emperor anytime soon. i am much more likely going to be found going quietly insane in a lighthouse and speaking mysterious riddles to passers-by.

>fix thyself first. and maybe you can fix others
agreed. 100%.

>but even if you can't, staring into the desert expanse is worthwhile in itself.
yep

>ofc in this age of mass commodification this fixing of oneself comes at a hefty economic cost.
fuck does it ever. i could surely have been making
>not surely
a little more $$$ instead of reading. the road not traveled i suppose.

>i suppose this is why i have a (probably misguided) aristocratic nostalgia since you had slaves to do all your work and life was 90% leisure 10% go die in battle for glory.
kek me too. unfortunately if you roll like that i'm pretty sure the blood-soaked survivors wind up coming back and killing you. i would love to be a disgusting fat slob floating on a barge on the nile and being fed peeled grapes & fanned with ostrich feathers & thinking about poetry &c but i don't suspect i would last very long
>esp not after the Sea Peoples showed up
>goddamn Sea Peoples
>ruining muh deathless dynasty of god-kings

>The importantance of philosophy, turned into science. How do we use knowledge to improve the world and life. To build space ships and robots, and ski resorts and bullet trains, and how do we make more and better, faster, stronger, and ai, singularity stuff.
yep

>So how much can things really change, and how much of the masses will be left out.
this is why acceleration matters. the robots are coming. we're all going to get fucked by this. i'm going to be in those masses when the time comes. i'm not looking forward to this.

(cont'd)

>Instead of letting the infinite ill problems of the world infinitely illy affect you, one has to say, this must be acceptable, at least for the time being, and for someone potentially so passionate, potentially caring about the situations of the world, about people, suffering of the world, one might call this state of being, an evil state of being, or their evil alter ego... maybe.
yep. that's it all right. i think it's mostly about survival mechanisms that become predatory once they become outworn. things work because they overcompensate, and then when the situation adapts they have to be surrendered, but they do not go gently into that good night. i suspect this is the kind of stuff that JBP's self-authoring thing is all about. it would make sense. the monomyth always has this psychological dimension in it
>and thinking about that stuff is what got me where i am now
>why *does* Good have to win? why not Evil?
>it's just better that way, but you have to visit some weird continental funhouses first

>Maybe it also is a real, part of us, maybe a true, maybe truer, maybe truest. maybe it is simply the angel and devil on the shoulder. A ying yang of selfishness and selflessness
checks out

>the more people that exist, the more needs there are, and wants.
this exactly. this was baudrillard's insight also: the consumer society was about the multiplication of *needs* rather than goods. and once this takes off the end recedes from view. b/c needs are infinite, and are in turn being continually re-designed according to the mysterious wants and desires of a consumer society. which eventually enfolds the whole world in a blanket of myth & fetish. even the joneses can't keep up with the joneses yet to be. hence the need to be able to seduce that which seduces one, as JB knew. but it's a cold, strange, fatal strategy to pursue

>It comes down to, population, quantity and quality, resources placement and scarcity, infrastructure, groups/communities/corporations/families/teams/borders, who can potentially have how many children, taxs, laws
that's right. these are not insoluble problems, but people's infinitely narcissistic self-perceptions render them virtually insoluble. the consumer society promises Happiness, but ultimately, i think, as a *response* to a lack of *genuine* existential meaning.

freud distinguishes between ordinary unhappiness and neurotic unhappiness. there is a third category, which is existential unhappiness, but this is of a particular kind: that's the unhappiness we don't actually mind having, that's the suffering that feels good, because it is for a higher goal. and that is precisely what people feel they are lacking. perhaps because of consumption, but maybe not.

gotta pack it in for tonight, but thanks for the conversation sir.

If you are reading this comment, either don't read this fucking thread or just stop now. It's all worthless, and you will be angry at yourself for wasting the time. I can't even believe I am wasting the time writing this goddamn reply. But just don't do it.

Could you put a percentage on how much of the human world is evil? How much power does evil hold in the world? What is wrong? How should things be? Is the only thing that truly matters in the world ones own happiness? All these topics and current political zeitgeist stuff, well I guess this has been always what political stuff is about, which may be what you have been getting at with your *other* is all others, the individual considering beyond themselves. And now is this only because of others potential to infringe on the individuals happiness, possibly.

But there is definitely something to do with the selfish and selfless. How that is playing out, in right and left. Politics, etc.

>didn't understand a thing to be honest
>but i kinda feel better about things anyway
>it's just fucking word salad though
>maybe this is zen
>you should try smoking it sometime

>if anime has taught me anything

Stopped reading

Anal Autistics isn't philosophy, it's regressive, degenerative garbage.
Back to /r/eddit you sentimentalist.

>being emotionally charged is bad
t. Letzter Mensch

You aren't a man, you're fucking 12. You browse Art of Manliness blogs and listen to Man-o-War.

>stoicism is good
Oh, you're just a little retard!

>that better not have been stirner you were quoting at me
The first was Stirner+Kierkegaard. And they weren't quotations.

>so a kind of superego? that which enjoys seeing us fail?
Not quite. It's the opposite of the superego. Like the one that kills that villain is a villain, the one that kills this hero is a hero. The important part is that the killer is acting evilly, but by virtue of this, the result is good. The loser (the killer) is the saved, but in that, perpetuates within themself the foundational act I was talking about earlier. Rather than getting rid of the law or the crime, it finds the law that makes the criminal lawful and good. It saves through sin.

>analytical scenarios aside we *don't* say everything we are feeling b/c my god
That's not really correct. What you don't express are your "first impressions".

>which is existential unhappiness, but this is of a particular kind: that's the unhappiness we don't actually mind having, that's the suffering that feels good, because it is for a higher goal.
Pretty much. There's nothing we're really obligated to, is the problem.

You're answering yourself with questions, user.

D'awwwwwww!

t. 17-year-old dickface