>Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche -> Jung

>Schopenhauer -> Nietzsche -> Jung
I've devised a plan to escape the prison called philosobabble. My aim is to be done with it and not look back. Will this road take me out of this unending sham?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    I guess if you decide that psycho-mythobabble is more your cup of tea, then sure. Maybe I haven't given Jung his fair shake but I think he's much more superficial than those other two, not sure what attracts you to him

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      my understanding is that he thought philosophers were mentally ill and hence philosophy came into existence.

      Depends on what you are trying to find. I became an addict years ago and despite my best efforts still find myself going back. Nietzsche is probably the equivalent of a gateway drug in my mind.

      a stable anti-philosophy stance.

      Not at all. However, the assumptions made here suggest you’ve made up your mind already as to what you think you believe. Especially on this board, you don’t have to read any of those figures to state you’re in some privileged headspace to recognize whatever philosobabble is and to transcend it. Everyone is a Nietzsche expert here.

      I know this would be the retort to my idea. but think, I am obviously trying to find material to read, if it is not convincing my goal will stay unfulfilled. I have strong bias, but have not made up my mind.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        My knee-jerk reaction to a stable anti-philosophy stance is to say extreme skepticism, but Hume kind of pissed all over that cake. Some flavors of nihilism do tend to gravitate in that direction.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Sorry for my initial assumptions. For psychology on philosophy: Appendix to Part 4 of Spinoza’s Ethics, Hegel’s Encyclopedia entry “Consciousness”, Schopenhauer's “On Noise”, Nietzsche’s “Schopenhauer as Educator” and The Gay Science, and Jung’s Modern Man in Search of a Soul and Jung contra Freud.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I think philosophy is gay and dumb and I despise Nietzsche and poopenhauer

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on what you are trying to find. I became an addict years ago and despite my best efforts still find myself going back. Nietzsche is probably the equivalent of a gateway drug in my mind.

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Just think, once large language models get a little better there would be an endless amount of generated philosopobabble, you'll never be done

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Not at all. However, the assumptions made here suggest you’ve made up your mind already as to what you think you believe. Especially on this board, you don’t have to read any of those figures to state you’re in some privileged headspace to recognize whatever philosobabble is and to transcend it. Everyone is a Nietzsche expert here.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm doing something similar. Will finish reading Nietzsche, and then go to Jung. Didn't read Schopenhauer, though

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    With Jung at least it's more or less clear what needs to be done - just integrate two opposite sides of you into one being.
    It's like a Polar star that you can always use to navigate wherever you are.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The way to escape philosophy is through religious experience, which can be attuned to through dream-reading and fantasy — that is what Jung is useful for; however, Jung is very much deeply ingrained in philosophical systematic frame-building. You can also tune into the profound through dancing, music, painting, sculpture, poetry, story-telling, etc.
    William Blake, along with the other 6 great Romantics, are some of the other authors I would recommend to derive inspiration that can feed into your attuning to the profound through one or more of the mediums I have brought up...
    Godspeed anon

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    you will be out of it with just Nietzsche, believe me

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >escape the prison called philosobabble
    just stop reading wtf

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just read Nietzsche then this

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why read that?
      What's so important about the handicap principle?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To make you see the theory of evolution more clearly in day-to-day life, to understand the nuances of behaviors and physical traits of organisms that we have simply never questioned, like why some birds are black, and others or white, or others are bright, or why rhinos have those horns, or why clowns have round noses, or why dogs jump on us even though it bothers us, or why we hug and kiss, or why we raise our eyebrows in surprise, or why we give gifts, we we are selfless in general, why people like to spend more money than they have, and so on. Once you see everything from such a perspective, then you can realize that philosophy can also be analyzed as something existing within biological studies. Why do we study philosophy? Well, we are literally animals, so it must be out of some urge to increase our chances of survival and reproduction. For some men this means displays of intellect about unfalsifiable topics that make no actual difference in the real world, because they just want to impress people. For others it is the urge to know the world and find better strategies for attaining his goals (though for the one who knows science, philosophy starts to look like religion: it only works if you have faith). And of course, generalizing about all beliefs, not just those that are “philosophical,” every belief is merely a survival strategy, a cope. But of course some copes are better than others. But that depends on the organism.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >though for the one who knows science, philosophy starts to look like religion: it only works if you have faith

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Some of what you listed sounds interesting, but making everything revolve around biology and evolution - that sounds like a pathological case of biologizing and reductionism.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If evolution is true, why would you not study humans from that perspective? Did we evolve or did we not? Are we biological or not?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even if it's true, that's not a reason to have a fatalistic deterministic worldview that revolves around evolution and biology.
            Also you can't go from "is" sentences to "ought to" sentences without making a leap, where you arbitrarily choose what to believe to.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            > Also you can't go from "is" sentences to "ought to" sentences without making a leap, where you arbitrarily choose what to believe to.
            not sure why you said this, I never mentioned an ought.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A big chunk of people's concerns are about "ought" side of things - what am I ought to do, what strategy am I ought to choose.
            Looks like you're trying explain everything away by listing a bunch of "is" facts from about biology and evolution. No, it doesn't work like that. You can't do that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why would you not study humans from that perspective?
            evolutionary biologists who are considered authorities on the topic prove why it's a bad idea because they constantly throw around conjecture and never have anything practical to contribute.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If evolution is true, why would you not study humans from that perspective? Did we evolve or did we not? Are we biological or not?

            By the way, this is basically what Nietzsche does, though it is not so explicit. Instead of focusing so much on the environment, he switches focus to the organism. This is why he says that a man’s philosophy doesn’t really have anything to do with cold logic, but his physiology (BG&E). I can’t remember where but somewhere he says something like “I’m convinced we can’t find a truth unless it’s useful for our survival.” Truth is will to power, etc. It’s all just survival strategies.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this shit's wild, and conclusions we derive from it are far reaching. if you find your niche, acting like a moron is advantageous because then you will signal to the females look how much I can afford to be a moron and put myself in danger still can win. what we call courage is basically handicap principle.

      shit like this make me hate life. I felt this when I read darwin for the first time. there is truly nothing in this life beyond ugliness.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        yeah this is everywhere but it usually goes without a name
        >the lazy genius that doesn’t study or go to class but still passes the class
        >the Chad that eats whatever and still looks good
        >the hot girl that’s really dumb but no one cares because she’s hot
        >etc.
        Even cartoon villains who give their victims chances to escape can be described this way, since they are essentially handicapping themselves to attempt to display their dominance of the situation. Though of course since the good guys always win, they actually escape

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You forgot Plato at the beginning.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      He also forgot Kant

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Where do I start with Jung?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      see

      Sorry for my initial assumptions. For psychology on philosophy: Appendix to Part 4 of Spinoza’s Ethics, Hegel’s Encyclopedia entry “Consciousness”, Schopenhauer's “On Noise”, Nietzsche’s “Schopenhauer as Educator” and The Gay Science, and Jung’s Modern Man in Search of a Soul and Jung contra Freud.

Comments are closed.