/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Beliefs are not a philosophy, let alone Philosophy.

The dilemma of the criterion is what has to do with justification, and so long as you believe in justification as the pillars that hold up truth this problem cannot be escaped.

What you want is a rationalization for your unreflective life choices. Trash of the worst kind.

>>2307

Philosophy is belief, everything is taken on faith. I find that not reflecting is more search for truth then reflection, the way is said to be found were no one looks.

>>2307

Rationalize? no, learn more about it, cultivate it more strongly.

>>2308

No, not everything is belief. Philosophy is not about beliefs, it is their deconstruction. Read some fucking Hegel.

>>2309

You're rationalizing. You want a set of reasons to back up your feelings/intuitions/beliefs. You want to make your ends justified somehow, you want a rational structure so that you can make yourself to not look a fool when people call your bullshit out.

Humans are rationalizing creatures. Reason itself concerns truth, but you don't care about that. You are stuck in the justified true belief conception.

>>2310

>You're rationalizing. You want a set of reasons to back up your feelings/intuitions/beliefs. You want to make your ends justified somehow, you want a rational structure so that you can make yourself to not look a fool when people call your bullshit out.

I am what I am, I just want to be me better. Why do you gotta be so negative, bro. I just wanna chill, philosophize, and shit. I would also like to articulate what is so great about doing what I do so others will join me, and we can make the world mellllooooow, be the change that you want to make, man. Btw, the ends are justified already, by right being just another belife. Also what bullshit? call me out for being to mellow, can you not handle my postive vibes!!!

Why would you need a philosophy of laziness, why can't you just be lazy?

>>2310

>No, not everything is belief. Philosophy is not about beliefs, it is their deconstruction. Read some fucking Hegel.

It is about believes. Read some fucking me instead of a German mystic with his unfalsifiable mechanics that only serve to promote ideology as inevitability.

You personally attack the person you are responding to, using empty platitudes that serve no purpose but rhetorical back up for the sentiment that you convey. It's cheap and portrays an insecurity that expresses itself in rhetorical aggression, the need to beat another person rhetorically, to win the argument, to produce a load of weaselwords from which nothing follows and are therefor uncontestable, allowing you to keep yourself untouched.

>>2314

>Why would you need a philosophy of laziness, why can't you just be lazy?

There are lay people, then there are masters. My goal is to dissociate, and go theater mode, you know. It is one thing to say you know that you know nothing, and you are still wrong, but it is another to feel it. I have felt it before, a month where I went completely insane, and everything had a very thing veil. Also yea, I do not get what he was going for there, I was obviously taking radical skeptics ontological stance.

>>2317

Being serious in laziness just seems self-defeating to me. I don't know exactly what you are describing with "theater mode", but it sounds somewhat psychotic to me, like how I felt that I was walking through a quiet movie, through a virtual copy of the world when I smoked too much weed. I wouldn't take such experiences too seriously, they are profound and we can't give them a place, we don't really have the words for it since language didn't develop in the psychotic realm.

It feels impressive, but something being extraordinary doesn't give it extraordinary importance. There are more places, more states, I tend to see them as rollercoaster rides, impression that should be taken as it is, and exited without long lasting dizzyness.

>>2318

The extremes of silent reflection just appeal to me I guess. And when a movie rolls, the theater audience only feels as much they invest.

>>2318

Also, I do not know what you mean by serious. It would never turn into effort I assure you.

>>2314

No, it's not about beliefs. Anyone doing epistemology after Kant is a waste of time. How about you fucking READ the G.I.s and maybe some Wittgenstein while you're at it.

>>2317

>taking skepticism seriously

>not even a full legit skeptic like Pyrrho

You fail at skepticism of the Buddhist and Greek kind all at once. Skepticism is the position of no , literally agnosticism, it's also a retarded self contradicting view.

>>2321

You have little to say but insults and only refer to the works of others. You are a snob, and a lazy one at it.

>>2321

>taking skepticism seriously

Sophists getting mad about complete skepticism is kinda annoying. Though I guess it kinda infuriating when somebody pull out the what is truth card in the middle of an argument, were neither took the stance till that point, but this is not one of those situations.

>position of no

It is the position nothing, however it is best understood by not talking about it at all. Lao Tzu said that those who desire only see the manifestation, the desireless see the mystery. Though Liezi said that it is only important to be in the presence of the mystery since we have a built in ego, which is true. The first action of the way is dispelling of earthly commitment, which is why it is considered the path of the old man.

>>2322

You're ignorant, and you've provided zero arguments or analysis to warrant me providing anything other than suggestive assertions to the assertions made by you and the op.

All this posturing deserves nothing but posturing.

>>2324

Read about the dilemma of the criterion. The only sophist here is you. You claim skepticism, yet fail to uphold it because it is a self refuting position. Skepticism is the position of no position, neither that anything is false, nor that anything is true; the position of floating all judgments including the judgment of itself. The skeptic doesn't claim to know anything, not even that his position is the right one because he doesn't know how to justify knowledge. This problem only applies to people who cannot stop making the subject/object presupposition.

Skepticism is a shit, and looking for justifications for your personal goals is nothing but begging for someone else to provide the justification for your egoic satisfaction. You can't even use the eastern mystics to your advantage since they weren't skeptics, they did the right thing and simply didn't care which is what the op proclaims to aim for.

>>2328

If I was expressing it correctly, I would not say anything, which of course would still be wrong, maybe. A man sees the the mountain, then it goes away, then it comes back, thus we see that us our selves may be a part of the problem, which is why again the way is in silence, maybe. You need to understand though that we know the moon is big, but it is small. That is why you can be buddhist, but still get angry. You see, there is nothing wrong with egotistic satisfaction, wrong is useless division. What matters is following the dao, and when you are weightless, this becomes very easy, to do wrong, or right. Slavoj expresses this perfectly when he talk about indifferent torturers being without mind while they stick swords in man.

>You can't even use the eastern mystics to your advantage since they weren't skeptics

You are right some of them did express more then skepticism, it goes without saying that I cherry pick, that which articulates radical skepticsm. Far be it from me to be in conflict with my self. I mean I am not how I live in accordance with whole of these philosophies. It would be awfully unattractive if Taoism was just wu-wei, and zen just meditation they would not be would philosophy, and I am not a Buddhist, a Taoist, or a skeptic. I am, what I am, whatever that is. Any who, I think I already know the answer to my question.

>>2321

>the G.I.s

What is this supposed to stand for?

>>2344

German Idealists: Kant, Schelling, Hegel mainly. Fichte has little to add to this though he is part of that movement.