/philosophy/ -Philosophy

>>5998

fuck physicality

>>7217

>fuck physicality

Why have you not offed yourself then?

>>7224

i want to get happiness

>>5998

I like being a twink

>>7212

>Epicurus

Where do I get started with him?

>obviously a glaring downside to his nature

so we need to add a consumerist/cosmopilitan flag here?

>>6842

>>6840

https://archive.org/details/TechnologicalSlaveryTheCollectedWritingsOfTheodoreJ.KaczynskiA.k.a.TheUnabomber

>>6762

>b-b-b-b-b-but b-b-b-b-bombs

I think you know most anon's here are going to like Uncle Ted. I liked his explanation of the power process and how technology frustrates it. However, I think reasonably intelligent people are still going to be able to go through the power process for at least a few more decades. For the other 80% of people who are now unable to go through this process, I think Ted proposed solution will really start to resonate with them over the coming decades (although they will mostly reach this conclusion independently of Uncle Ted). His proposed solution being, of course, bombs.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>

>>6770

From a practical standpoint:

>Particularly weak targeting, like a lot of mail bombing campaigns. It wouldn't be sustainable to shoot higher than his most prestigious targets, a timber lobbyist and an ad exec, since some of his bombs already went off in the face of random secretaries and students. Not exactly a competent enemy of the landrapers.

>Demanding his manifesto be published

>Overstylization of his writing made it recognizable

>Not being a better brother

>Simping

From literary and ideological standpoints:

>Constantly relying on unprovable conjectures and appeals to emotion

>Ultimately his choice of mail bombs contributed to a heightened security climate where opening and tampering with first-class mail is more easily justified by government bodies, thus indirectly eroding the general liberty of all and compelling more people to communicate with more efficient technological media

>Tried to hang himself during his trial rather than plead insanity

>His stinky doodoo cabin was auctioned off on the internet

>Ultimately made the fbi more profitable

>Overstylization, making his writing kind of drab

>Bad poetry

>the above in service of simping

>>4265

>quality of life

This isn't at all as objective as you think it is. I don't want to jump into the slavery debate going on, but you should really scrutinize what makes life worth living and whether the modern man truly has that je ne sais quoi. Hunter gatherers lack features that are ubiquitous in the first world, such as generalized anxiety disorders, depression and other mood dysregulation problems, nihilism fueled hopelessness—the structure of our economy has lead to the structure of our society such that individuals have rooms of their own in houses of their own, often quite distanced from the houses of their neighbors, who have probably never met or rarely talk to. 'Community' is a buzzword, not a serious notion. If you made a list of pros and cons and were able to weigh those pros and cons against a value system we could agree to, I am confident that you would find that hunter gatherers living in the most 'impoverished' conditions (for this too is a subjective notion) have a quality of life similar to if not greater than the modern man. If you are a materialist who cannot appreciate the importance of the intangibles of life, then I don't expect you to agree with this claim.

Slavery:

1. forced, you can't choose.

2. not forced, but you have no choice, like you have no land to farm, no money to start your own business, you have to be hired to work against your will.

Philosopher:

1. motivated only by finding the truth (possibly against slavery).

2. motivated by justifying what he benefits from (he would never condemn slavery, only justify).

I doubt a slave could have the money and education to become a philosopher. To become a philosopher, one at least has to be free. And the chance that a slave owner or a free person condemns slavery is small.

>>1587

>What does that say about philosophy?

That it began to suck during the modern age.

>>1591

This is big brain time.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>

>>1587

HOLY SAMEFAG BATMAN!!

>Why does philosophy only now speak against slavery

But yeah philosophy is a reflection of the time and place of the philosopher. I think that was the opinion of Spengler or someone like that.

<tinyboard flag alt></tinyboard>

>>>/fringe/

they have a thread for questions. and they have 30 threads 750 posts long full of questions. And your question has already been asked many times. But you can asked many more times.

>>6623

Let me explain this in an Earthly/physical way, if I may.

>You have a cassette tape. You copy the contents onto another tape so you have a record of it, then you completely erase the tape. Let's say your soul is that first cassette tape and the second tape is a spiritual record kept of your past life. Even though all the data has been erased from your first cassette tape (soul) that tape (soul) is still intact, fully functional and ready to be put into a recorder (physical body) to be filled with all new recordings.

>Get it, now?

Because Joe Blog who lives his life IS NOT the one being reincarnated. Entity X becomes Joe Blog - is incarnated - lives the life of Joe Blog, dies as Joe Blog, and is then reawakened/returned to Entity X.

Entity X then becomes Sarah Jane - is REincarnated - lives the life of Sarah Jane, dies as Sarah Jane, and is then reawakened/returned to Entity X.

Entity X is the real idenity. Entity X is the one being reincarnated. Joe Blog and Sarah Jane are like books upon the shelf.

>>7014

> it doesn't generate your consciousness

read science

If you reincarnate, you don't necessarily retain the memories from past lives. You are, more or less, a different person from life to life.

but supposedly there is such a thing as past-life regression:

https://www.invidio.us/watch?v=HayY1yyXnn0

or a tautology or an indicative -- basically, anything that doesn't have a false or possibly false antecedent

Do you mean necessarily? Obviously depends on who's hearing it, I don't think you could generate any consensus on that basis.

>>7593

I didn't know worms could use pencils?

>>7142

So he's denying the ability to have discourse? Sounds like something a coward would do.

>>7151

most analytic atheists are cowards when faced with the abyss.

>>7485

Why are you replying to yourself?

>>7487

Ethical Solipsism

>>7057

I agree.

Stephen Hawking did something similar.

Smart scientists and foolish political philosophers.

>>7295

They only speak when spoken to

>>7324

Since when have women had sympathy for anyone but themselves. Schopenhauer called them children and rightfully so

>>7295

Also zioprot women are fucking idiots too.

>>7263

With my brain. I want to enjoy sexual pleasure as much as possible because it's enjoyable, that is very simple. You seem to think that's somehow a bad thing which it isn't, and is in no way for you to thrust on anyone else against their will.

>>7324

>uncut men don't really have significant sympathy for people complaining about their lost foreskin

I have what might be termed survivor's guilt on this issue. Maybe not true survivor's guilt in the PTSD sense, but anytime this topic gets brought up or I think of it randomly, my blood boils to think of all my friends and family, and compatriots who I will never meet, who had this done to them. You're right that most people don't think it's a big enough issue to warrant such strong emotion, but given what I know (namely how conniving the medical establishment can be, and how religion pseudojustifications factor into it), I certainly feel warranted in my strong emotions.

Naturally one can't assume the nature of truth.

>>7581

Might want to look into this: https://serendipstudio.org/exchange/molly-tamulevich/oh-cruel-world-evolution-cruelty-human-beings

"In Our Inner Ape, De Waal provides example after example of empathy and cruelty among chimps and bonobos. Empathy, the ability to understand and perceive the emotions of others is another trait that assumes theory of mind, and he argues that a wide range of animals from dogs and cats to chimpanzees and bonobos possess this trait. Waal describes a female bonobo's empathetic attempts to assist a stunned bird to fly again. She spread its wings with her fingers and tossed the bird into the air. When the bird fell to the ground, she sat with it until it recovered and could fly on its own. This compassion for a different species is not as remarkable as the fact that the bonobo tailored her efforts to fit what she had observed of birds, that they fly and that they spread their wings to do so. The bonobo demonstrates a high level of intelligence in realizing the plight of the "other," especially because it is unlike her.

Because bonobos possess empathy; they are aware of an animal's pain, which establishes that they are also aware of cruelty. Chimps posses this theory of mind as well. De Waal describes a game that a group of captive chimpanzees played in which they lured chickens to them with bread and then poked them with sharp wire for fun. The chimpanzees utilized thier physical and intellectual power over the weaker, less intelligent chickens to inflict pain upon them. The chicken's pain amused the chimps, illustrating the chimps' capacity for cruelty. Chimps also attack others in pairs, one holding the victim down and the other beating the helpless captive. In making their victim immobile in order to inflict more pain upon them, chimps exhibit a premeditated agenda to do harm. The infliction of pain releases endorphins in the chimps, rewarding them for their cruelty. In these ways, both chimps and bonobos exhibit traits that suggest a theory of mind, and because chimps, bonobos and humans are closely liPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

>>7581

Because men's rights = LOL

>>7527

>Holds reality to be an absolute.

This is pure delusion as we only have limited perspective on reality

>>7527

also read kant

>>7561

She doesn't deny this. What unique about her is she states that one part of the reality cannot contradict the another. As if reality could contradict itself. A limited view is just as valid and can be build upon.

>>7527

Ayn Rand was a Closed Individualist though, which is on shaky philosophical grounds.

>>7576

>Closed Individualism

This is philosophical mistake which materialist make as well. It's the failure of recognizing the difference between animate and inanimate thing in reality. The animate being living being, things capable of self-motion, from energy used that is stored with in their body which came from food. Closed Individuality is found. There's even a whole science dedicated to the study of life, biology.