ntayrt but it would help you articulate your thoughts better. reading over old things you've written and being able to expand on your opinion is good for developing your thoughts
By arbitrarily happening to find yourself in a position to be one of the first to notice an approaching trend. Think of pynchon in a cramped office writing technical articles about rockets
By not trying to "develop your own unique strain". People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
He just had a high IQ. Intelligent people are just as prone to addiction, but better at managing it. If he sobered up for a day or two though, he might have noticed all his criticisms of Christianity were slightly weaker versions of Celsus.
>By not trying to "develop your own unique strain". People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
no one wants to smell mine, I just let one out as I typed this. also "incel" social philosophy is not yet a thing even if people like Holleubecq or however you spell that French moron's name out, anyways he mostly writes novels. I write non-fiction.
Accidently indoctrinating yourself into a belief system, recognizing when your thinking becomes reflexive and dishonest (which is dependent on personal character, exercising v. exercising bias, so it's somewhat to chance), rejecting the system but without unjust prejudice (this is the lure to become a pseud--see internet atheists), recognizing the above pattern in all systems and not falling into it as much as personally possible (which means you'll be at a constant intellectual disadvantage, you'll be analytical of presets instead of being able to use them reflexively).
connect the dots between various philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and thelogians to create a coherent system. I chose inceldom and drew upon the ideas why people think consent is so important, and what that has to do with law and the history of humanity and how it shapes the political economy and things as far reaching as international relations.
Think really, really hard about something. Form as many different opinions as you possibly can about it. Then, take each opinion and try to think of ways that it could be wrong. Do this continuously throughout your life, always keeping track of what the best opinion you've found is but also trying to disprove it.
Publish and talk about possible opinions and listen to their challengers. Incorporate opinions learned from others into your corpus and challenge them as well as your own.
Easy. Accept no master or intellectual superior. When you disagree with the consensus, have the courage to keep disagreeing, if the reasons are sufficient. Never be too proud to agree with the consensus when necessary.
>How do you develop your own unique strain of thought as a thinker?
Make predictions about the world, even if they are based on other people's theories, the ones that don't come true: fix them until they do.
Congratulations, you discovered unique insights into the world.
As an example, look at how some philosophers develop their own ideas based on those who came before. Like how Leibniz and Berkeley had a lot of their philosophy based on countering Descartes' materialism
Then you're just not turning thoughts into action, or at least, into arbitrage. As they say in finance: the only way to beat the market is to bet against the market consensus, because the consensus is priced in.
by not asking other people for your answer fricking moron...
>how do i be myself??? asking others to tell you... fricking autistic piece of shit
that would be a fundamentally different question. "How do I be myself" implies there already is a self, or a more authentic version of being that he is veering away from.
How to think for himself might mean continuing to veer away from his authentic self, which would happen to also be derivative and unoriginal in thought, towards unique ideas.
Know thyself
Literally be yourself.
You’re being a parody of a racist shell you saw on pol or b. Get it together
>Literally be yourself.
Not necessarily, see above: if you're "authentically derivative", then being yourself will not make your thinking unique.
By not trying to "develop your own unique strain". People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
He just had a high IQ. Intelligent people are just as prone to addiction, but better at managing it. If he sobered up for a day or two though, he might have noticed all his criticisms of Christianity were slightly weaker versions of Celsus.
>People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
What have you found distinguishes those who don't descend into hipster art sniffing from those that do?
Read BAM by BAP
I miss tobacco sponsors and grid girls. I was lucky enough to grow up watching that shit well before the DTS days.
>Not necessarily, see above: if you're "authentically derivative", then being yourself will not make your thinking unique.
Literally irrelevant even if true.
How is being yourself, a conformist, not 100% relevant to thinking uniquely? After all, if your natural way of being is to not think for yourself, then it is impossible to both be yourself and think uniquely which is what OP was asking.
Hitchens was onions. Even if he was smart, he was unbalanced and filled with unchecked vice. Although he's not the worst of the bunch, I'd advise staying away from the majority of the Nu Atheist crowd, or at least taking what they say with a lb of salt.
You posted an image of Christopher Hitchens. It was he who suggested that you should read every word of an author you really like. I think he read every word of George Orwell. Anyway, do that, and just build off of the chosen writer's thoughts.
just think a lot
do something a lot and It'll catch a style, that's it
if this is something that you have to ask, then you don't think as often as you think
Have a "unique strain of thought" is not nearly as important as "being right about things that matter". Such as whether someone is going to cheat you, or whether you should stay with the company and move to another department for greater satisfaction, or who you should marry.
Lots of this stuff is bog-standard. Having "unique thoughts" about them isn't going to help you at all. Even if you're a grifter being unique won't help you, the trick to being a self-help or motivational speaker to to repackage ideas people already know that basically distill to "you got this, bro" in a esoteric jargon that you too can master if you put down 10,000 dollars for my "Being the Emperor of You: unlocking your internal alchemy to master love, life, business, and family" seminar.
You want to really be a unique thinker? Be a schizo, make semantic inferences and utterly useless analogies, you'll be unique, the strains of thought will be so unique in fact as to be totally unintelligible to anyone. But you'll be unique.
Or you could diligently apply non-unique ideas about the world, but apply them well in your own interest. (or repackage them as a Grifter with a thin veneer of esoterism)
your post was great until you said "thin veneer," been seeing the word veneer too much online lately. its a good word descriptive wise but it sounds so pretentious. anyways, insightful post anon
But anon, it's one of the latest popular verbose words that's making it's rounds in the mainstream for all the morons that want to sound super duper smart and not like morons.
your post was great until you said "thin veneer," been seeing the word veneer too much online lately. its a good word descriptive wise but it sounds so pretentious. anyways, insightful post anon
to be fair, that is how vocabularies proliferate in general
i remember during the abortion rights week you had tryhard homosexuals on twitter throwing around "codify" as if they were a senator
Your criticism is noted. the parenthesis was tacked on because I felt like I needed to remind the reader, particularly OP, that even grifters don't have new thoughts.
I learned from reading about his death that even drinking hot coffee or tea can give you esophageal cancer. Nice to know after doing it for about thirty years.
Ive heard that before but I'm doubtful of the link. Wouldn't you expect hot food, which is consumed way more often than hot beverages, to be causing esophageal cancer too. Maybe if you consistently drink near boiling drinks but who the frick does that? It's to painful. You wait for your drink to cool to a reasonable temperature.
At the start everyone inevitably buys into some kind of coherent, closed system of thought that appeals to them. The key to developing your own insights (which I'm far from myself) is to try to rid yourself of the mindset that seeks to explain everything by a single cause or phenomenon. Once the urge to simplify and shunt everything into pre-conceived categories is held in check, then you can start to develop your own thought properly. It requires that you actively develop your own critereon for truth and falsehood, which is an extreme difficult thing to do.
Connect to your subconscious and it will give you tons of original shit and also content that when you look into, you'll find a number of geniuses have already written about it
its kinda like asking how can i become 7 feet tall and win the olympics
well, youre not 7 feet tall, very few are
think of all the midwits that tried to make it in writing, do you know any of them? think of all the midwits that tried original thought, do you know any of them? no, you dont. because recognizing in the world things no one has ever seen or though about is nearly impossible. things are pretty plain, grass is green, water goes downstream...not much originality allowed
>its kinda like asking how can i become 7 feet tall and win the olympics
Well that's based on the assumption, which OP clearly isn't making, that your ability to have original thoughts is as physically determined as your physical attributes.
Why are you so certain that it is impossible to think originally if you don't already? What is the reasons for this, I have to admit I can't agree or disagree with your rhetorical questions because I don't know anyone personally who has "tried original thought" let alone failed or suceeded. >think of all the midwits that tried original thought, do you know any of them?
I don't know anyone who "attempted" it, so the sub-population of zero is zero. >grass is green,
No it's not. Look at the yellow and even hints of red in pic-related. I work in an industry where color is very important so I'm going to sperg out on what you said, because natural light especially is exceptionally complex, much like all the frequencies that make the distinct sound of a nice violin or guitar, there is a complex spectrum that makes up any image.
Not only is it not a matter of subjectivity, it's an objective fact: look at the vectorscope, the profile almost overlaps with yellow, and skews towards green and red? Objectively: this grass is not green. It's something much more wonderfully complex.
Transgress the limits of the moral world and discover what is right and wrong. This is how Thoreau thought that we become the "progenitors of a nobler race": by rejecting the ways of others and our forebears and following our own, unique way in order that we may discover what has been hitherto undiscovered and untested by others, from which experiences we can learn more about ourselves and the world around us. For Thoreau, the individual is the center of change and discovery.
i ask myself, "what would i do?" and then i do it.
Know thyself
Literally be yourself.
You’re being a parody of a racist shell you saw on pol or b. Get it together
This will be underrated by plebs only.
keep a diary
How would that help?
ntayrt but it would help you articulate your thoughts better. reading over old things you've written and being able to expand on your opinion is good for developing your thoughts
By arbitrarily happening to find yourself in a position to be one of the first to notice an approaching trend. Think of pynchon in a cramped office writing technical articles about rockets
How did he function while being perpetually drunk off cheap Scotch?
By not trying to "develop your own unique strain". People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
He just had a high IQ. Intelligent people are just as prone to addiction, but better at managing it. If he sobered up for a day or two though, he might have noticed all his criticisms of Christianity were slightly weaker versions of Celsus.
*decend
>By not trying to "develop your own unique strain". People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
no one wants to smell mine, I just let one out as I typed this. also "incel" social philosophy is not yet a thing even if people like Holleubecq or however you spell that French moron's name out, anyways he mostly writes novels. I write non-fiction.
The ha-... The loved Christopher Hitchens.
Accidently indoctrinating yourself into a belief system, recognizing when your thinking becomes reflexive and dishonest (which is dependent on personal character, exercising v. exercising bias, so it's somewhat to chance), rejecting the system but without unjust prejudice (this is the lure to become a pseud--see internet atheists), recognizing the above pattern in all systems and not falling into it as much as personally possible (which means you'll be at a constant intellectual disadvantage, you'll be analytical of presets instead of being able to use them reflexively).
connect the dots between various philosophers, anthropologists, sociologists, psychologists and thelogians to create a coherent system. I chose inceldom and drew upon the ideas why people think consent is so important, and what that has to do with law and the history of humanity and how it shapes the political economy and things as far reaching as international relations.
Think really, really hard about something. Form as many different opinions as you possibly can about it. Then, take each opinion and try to think of ways that it could be wrong. Do this continuously throughout your life, always keeping track of what the best opinion you've found is but also trying to disprove it.
Publish and talk about possible opinions and listen to their challengers. Incorporate opinions learned from others into your corpus and challenge them as well as your own.
Easy. Accept no master or intellectual superior. When you disagree with the consensus, have the courage to keep disagreeing, if the reasons are sufficient. Never be too proud to agree with the consensus when necessary.
>How do you develop your own unique strain of thought as a thinker?
Make predictions about the world, even if they are based on other people's theories, the ones that don't come true: fix them until they do.
Congratulations, you discovered unique insights into the world.
Read BAM by BAP
I googled "BAM by BAP" and it sent me to an indonesian kids show. Pls send help.
Bronze Age mindset by Bronze Age pervert
>BAM by BAP
gay
As an example, look at how some philosophers develop their own ideas based on those who came before. Like how Leibniz and Berkeley had a lot of their philosophy based on countering Descartes' materialism
Have something uniquely worthwhile to say.
it's not worth it anon, nobody will think you're smart if your thoughts are unique, they will think that you are a moron or insane. Trust me.
Then you're just not turning thoughts into action, or at least, into arbitrage. As they say in finance: the only way to beat the market is to bet against the market consensus, because the consensus is priced in.
that would be a fundamentally different question. "How do I be myself" implies there already is a self, or a more authentic version of being that he is veering away from.
How to think for himself might mean continuing to veer away from his authentic self, which would happen to also be derivative and unoriginal in thought, towards unique ideas.
>Literally be yourself.
Not necessarily, see above: if you're "authentically derivative", then being yourself will not make your thinking unique.
>People who think this way nearly always decent into an abyss of hipster fart sniffing.
What have you found distinguishes those who don't descend into hipster art sniffing from those that do?
I miss tobacco sponsors and grid girls. I was lucky enough to grow up watching that shit well before the DTS days.
>Not necessarily, see above: if you're "authentically derivative", then being yourself will not make your thinking unique.
Literally irrelevant even if true.
How is being yourself, a conformist, not 100% relevant to thinking uniquely? After all, if your natural way of being is to not think for yourself, then it is impossible to both be yourself and think uniquely which is what OP was asking.
>I miss tobacco sponsors and grid girls
I think society has declined since the imposition of indoor smoking bans. I stand with Big Tobacco.
No
by not asking other people for your answer fricking moron...
>how do i be myself??? asking others to tell you... fricking autistic piece of shit
Hitchens was onions. Even if he was smart, he was unbalanced and filled with unchecked vice. Although he's not the worst of the bunch, I'd advise staying away from the majority of the Nu Atheist crowd, or at least taking what they say with a lb of salt.
Read philosophy books.
Look up a topic and get a podcaster's/youtuber's opinion as your own.
You posted an image of Christopher Hitchens. It was he who suggested that you should read every word of an author you really like. I think he read every word of George Orwell. Anyway, do that, and just build off of the chosen writer's thoughts.
Not being an alcoholic obese warmongering Anglo is generally a good way to start
just think a lot
do something a lot and It'll catch a style, that's it
if this is something that you have to ask, then you don't think as often as you think
Have a "unique strain of thought" is not nearly as important as "being right about things that matter". Such as whether someone is going to cheat you, or whether you should stay with the company and move to another department for greater satisfaction, or who you should marry.
Lots of this stuff is bog-standard. Having "unique thoughts" about them isn't going to help you at all. Even if you're a grifter being unique won't help you, the trick to being a self-help or motivational speaker to to repackage ideas people already know that basically distill to "you got this, bro" in a esoteric jargon that you too can master if you put down 10,000 dollars for my "Being the Emperor of You: unlocking your internal alchemy to master love, life, business, and family" seminar.
You want to really be a unique thinker? Be a schizo, make semantic inferences and utterly useless analogies, you'll be unique, the strains of thought will be so unique in fact as to be totally unintelligible to anyone. But you'll be unique.
Or you could diligently apply non-unique ideas about the world, but apply them well in your own interest. (or repackage them as a Grifter with a thin veneer of esoterism)
your post was great until you said "thin veneer," been seeing the word veneer too much online lately. its a good word descriptive wise but it sounds so pretentious. anyways, insightful post anon
But anon, it's one of the latest popular verbose words that's making it's rounds in the mainstream for all the morons that want to sound super duper smart and not like morons.
you both sound moronic
No u
yes, i am too
to be fair, that is how vocabularies proliferate in general
i remember during the abortion rights week you had tryhard homosexuals on twitter throwing around "codify" as if they were a senator
Your criticism is noted. the parenthesis was tacked on because I felt like I needed to remind the reader, particularly OP, that even grifters don't have new thoughts.
I bet you believe in determinism and physicalism you absolute leftoid
you have unique strand of thought everyday. it’s just that none of them are worth telling anyone about
>develop
Huh? The muses yell their understanding to me. No "development", necessary.
I learned from reading about his death that even drinking hot coffee or tea can give you esophageal cancer. Nice to know after doing it for about thirty years.
what about cold coffee or tea?
Pretty much the same maybe 1% lower
Ive heard that before but I'm doubtful of the link. Wouldn't you expect hot food, which is consumed way more often than hot beverages, to be causing esophageal cancer too. Maybe if you consistently drink near boiling drinks but who the frick does that? It's to painful. You wait for your drink to cool to a reasonable temperature.
At the start everyone inevitably buys into some kind of coherent, closed system of thought that appeals to them. The key to developing your own insights (which I'm far from myself) is to try to rid yourself of the mindset that seeks to explain everything by a single cause or phenomenon. Once the urge to simplify and shunt everything into pre-conceived categories is held in check, then you can start to develop your own thought properly. It requires that you actively develop your own critereon for truth and falsehood, which is an extreme difficult thing to do.
Connect to your subconscious and it will give you tons of original shit and also content that when you look into, you'll find a number of geniuses have already written about it
Read a lot. I will now read ur thread. I have a 188 IQ and read 1600 pages a day
think/
ffs, i thought this was the high iq board
But what if you only think bog-standard thoughts? Regurgitate the thoughts of others?
its kinda like asking how can i become 7 feet tall and win the olympics
well, youre not 7 feet tall, very few are
think of all the midwits that tried to make it in writing, do you know any of them? think of all the midwits that tried original thought, do you know any of them? no, you dont. because recognizing in the world things no one has ever seen or though about is nearly impossible. things are pretty plain, grass is green, water goes downstream...not much originality allowed
>its kinda like asking how can i become 7 feet tall and win the olympics
Well that's based on the assumption, which OP clearly isn't making, that your ability to have original thoughts is as physically determined as your physical attributes.
Why are you so certain that it is impossible to think originally if you don't already? What is the reasons for this, I have to admit I can't agree or disagree with your rhetorical questions because I don't know anyone personally who has "tried original thought" let alone failed or suceeded.
>think of all the midwits that tried original thought, do you know any of them?
I don't know anyone who "attempted" it, so the sub-population of zero is zero.
>grass is green,
No it's not. Look at the yellow and even hints of red in pic-related. I work in an industry where color is very important so I'm going to sperg out on what you said, because natural light especially is exceptionally complex, much like all the frequencies that make the distinct sound of a nice violin or guitar, there is a complex spectrum that makes up any image.
Not only is it not a matter of subjectivity, it's an objective fact: look at the vectorscope, the profile almost overlaps with yellow, and skews towards green and red? Objectively: this grass is not green. It's something much more wonderfully complex.
Live.
Spend some time assessing your situation and finding out what you want. Then, go after it.
>contradiction
where's the contradiction?
>Again the red label pleb...
Take 10 grams of mushrooms and lock yourself in a sensory deprivation tank. Good luck.
Some secret societies in American colleges dose initiates with acid and lock them in coffins overnight.
Transgress the limits of the moral world and discover what is right and wrong. This is how Thoreau thought that we become the "progenitors of a nobler race": by rejecting the ways of others and our forebears and following our own, unique way in order that we may discover what has been hitherto undiscovered and untested by others, from which experiences we can learn more about ourselves and the world around us. For Thoreau, the individual is the center of change and discovery.
>red label neat
ew wtf