>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your anc...

>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your ancestors
>the world you perceive is not real, just a construct made for practical purposes
>the body is already immortal and possesses "extraordinary intelligence" that functions regardless of what thought does
>all thought cares about is perpetuating itself
>the continuity of experience is an illusion created by thought
>mutual terror, not love will save the world
>all religions are just the desire for permanent happiness (which doesn't exist)
>communication between human beings is not possible
>you will never find the answers to your questions because you need the search in order to perpetuate your ego
>you will not do anything about any of your problems because you do not actually want to solve them
>all values are the values of society
>psychological egoism is true
>civilization was a mistake
ngl I can't refute this

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And true or false nothing changes.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Basics of philosophy summarized well

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The purpose of understanding is not change.

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mutual terror, not love will save the world
    expound on this

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      basically read Hobbes. but also people use love and charity as a tool for themselves

      ?list=PLJGnfFmap7N9BTHNv4mIaqgyv-Co1K0Sy&t=112
      >Love is an invention of the moment, used to replace power. Since you have failed in every other way, through every other channel, to acquire that all-powerful state of being, you have invented what you call love.
      >But this does not imply that the missiles are on their way, that doomsday is just around the corner. Man's instinct for survival is very deep-rooted. What I am saying is that all this sweet talk of peace, compassion, and love has not touched man at all. It's rubbish. What keeps people together is terror. The terror of mutual extinction has had a strong and ancient influence upon man. This is, of course, no guarantee. I don't know.
      >The separative structure of thought, which was introduced into the consciousness of man long ago, has created the violent world, and will probably push man and the rest of life on this planet to the brink of extinction. But biologically each cell has the wisdom to avoid models and promises, and simply, out of sheer survival motives, cooperates with the cell next to it. Out of the terror of annihilation, man, like the cells of his body, will learn to cooperate, but not out of love or compassion.
      >This (species) has survived for many centuries, and it is going to find some way to survive. My point is this: Not because of love, not because
      of universal brotherhood, not because of all that stuff, but because of the terror of liquidating ourselves, we will learn to live together. You cannot hurt anybody without hurting yourself -- not psychologically, but physically -- only when we realize this, will we learn to live together. As long as each individual seeks his own security, there can be no overall security

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Should be self explanatory, love does not cause us to band together, it causes us to hole up with those few people we love. At best a handful of people share the love you have for your mother (yes, hypobolic, your mom is a terrible example but what can you do) but millions of people share your irrational fears.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        wouldn't the bond from shared fears be close to love? compassion and sympathy are emotions only in the case of love.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    didn't read, already know these ineffable truths

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    In the context given, obviously. Plotgay?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      [...]

      no it doesnt

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In the context given, how does it not?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the context given
          what context?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            All he is saying is that humanity will come together over a common fear, not a common love; what will save the world is a fear which will either wipe out humanity or everyone who does not believe in a fairly narrow path for humanity. Its banal, either humanity will die or it will be reduced to a small enough of a number that it becomes irrelevant.

            wouldn't the bond from shared fears be close to love? compassion and sympathy are emotions only in the case of love.

            Love and hate are essentially the same they are only differentiated by how we act on them, both consume us beyond rationality. Compassion and sympathy (you probably meant empathy) are rational for the most part. If you actually have compassion or sympathy (or empathy) to the point you will sacrifice your own welfare as you would for someone you love you will quickly become irrelevant to everybody.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >haha everything is constructed!
    No shit. Know what's left if you deconstruct everything?
    >hello sir welcome to the void
    Anyone who concludes that deconstructionism means "all construction is bad" is a midwit at best

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      yes you can't even deconstruct it if you tried because it isn't in your interest to.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I've studied deconstructionism for ten years lol

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          and did you deconstruct a single iota of one sense perception?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >you will not do anything about any of your problems because you do not actually want to solve them

    Story of my life. grew up a spoiled, upper-middle class chad, had tons of sex, and then became a completely irrelevant loser by 25. I tell my self that my problem is I’m not trying to get a real skill/career, or lack urgency, but I’ve spent 10 years being “concerned” about these things and done absolutely nothing to change

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      what have you been doing for 10 years?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Working shitty jobs and going on cooming trips in Thailand

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Better to realise that at 35 than 45

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >one chariot
    >two horses, one dark one light
    >two riders, one holds the reigns, the other is the archer

    "If you want peace, prepare for war." applies all the way up from States down to the individual and individual drives. Objective Freedom requires the mediation of force in systematized Law-- and that itself can be hijacked in the way that results in the leading cause of unnatural death last century being rogue - usually Red - government & paramilitary proxies thereof.

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    All religions differ, their root purpose is our innate drive towards unity as it was our primary condition.
    Love is an expression of that primordial drive. It is an undeniable force that has absolutely zero regard for reason or prudence, the ego does not enter into it since the ego is despite all the bluster, an infinitely weak aspect of the self, it only holds ground by deception and intimidation. Love is universally present no matter the state of ego. Since love does not bend to its wiles it can only be by the work of ego that you would accredit its achievements to ego.

    Most of the logic holds but it still trips at ego's thousand faced games. When thought can only perpetuate itself one can't then reasonably expect reason to give you the effective result to a problem it invented, not one that solves anything. Only when the mind is quiet can you begin to discern.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your ancestors
    how did that "knowledge" get generated if you have no experiences of your own and this must have necessarily been true from the beginning (whatever that looked like)?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      who knows, maybe the experience always existed. This is one of Kunt's antinomies.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I would accept this argument if it weren't explicitly stated in OP's thread that it's "the collective knowledge of all your ancestors" which points to it coming from/having something to do with your ancestors rather than just being there for you to discover

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          regardless even what new stuff is produced with you, it just happens randomly. I thought about this a lot. Even if new things spontaneously come into existence, it's just by chance so you still dont have any kind of freedom. Plus evolution is so gradual anything you do is negligible.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >even what new stuff is produced with you, it just happens randomly.
            in what way randomly?
            >Even if new things spontaneously come into existence, it's just by chance so you still dont have any kind of freedom.
            what new things? what would constitute freedom?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >what new things?
            new experiences e.g. there was a time when we perceived no colors and now we perceive all the colors we do. assuming the world mind doesnt eternally hold them in itself they would have to be gradually produced.
            >in what way randomly?
            in theory anything could happen by random chance, however certain events are less likely because they require more conditions, e.g. in order to experience now I have to also experience all the previous moments. so perhaps if there is nothing to stop something from existing, it will pop into existence and fade in and out all the time, whereas in order to become an enduring event, it will need more conditioning events to facilitate it, and most things cannot come into existence at all without a lot of prerequisite conditions because they are by nature complex events. even if in theory all the conditions could be produced at once spontaneously, it would be too unlikely.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >new experiences e.g. there was a time when we perceived no colors
            do you mean we didn't have names for the colors? because the hominids have always seen color
            >in theory anything could happen by random chance [...] even if in theory all the conditions could be produced at once spontaneously, it would be too unlikely.
            I'm sorry, but what you're saying is too imprecise to be meaningful

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > because the hominids have always seen color
            and where did hominids come from etc?
            >what you're saying is too imprecise to be meaningful
            It can be made precise you just need to know something about the situation you're talking about. e.g. how big the population of possible events in a given scenario is. Which we dont even know if there is infinite or finite possible events. But in statistical mechanics and qm it can be precise

            >>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your ancestors
            how did my ancestors acquire this knowledge and when did the shift happen from acquiring knowledge authentically to selectively accessing it from the collective memories of ancestors

            read the thread from here

            >>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your ancestors
            how did that "knowledge" get generated if you have no experiences of your own and this must have necessarily been true from the beginning (whatever that looked like)?

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >>you have no experiences of your own, the brain is just an antennae for selecting whatever it needs out of the collective knowledge of all your ancestors
    how did my ancestors acquire this knowledge and when did the shift happen from acquiring knowledge authentically to selectively accessing it from the collective memories of ancestors

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >mutual terror, not love will save the world
    Need elaboration

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      it's basic hobbesianism

      basically read Hobbes. but also people use love and charity as a tool for themselves

      ?list=PLJGnfFmap7N9BTHNv4mIaqgyv-Co1K0Sy&t=112
      >Love is an invention of the moment, used to replace power. Since you have failed in every other way, through every other channel, to acquire that all-powerful state of being, you have invented what you call love.
      >But this does not imply that the missiles are on their way, that doomsday is just around the corner. Man's instinct for survival is very deep-rooted. What I am saying is that all this sweet talk of peace, compassion, and love has not touched man at all. It's rubbish. What keeps people together is terror. The terror of mutual extinction has had a strong and ancient influence upon man. This is, of course, no guarantee. I don't know.
      >The separative structure of thought, which was introduced into the consciousness of man long ago, has created the violent world, and will probably push man and the rest of life on this planet to the brink of extinction. But biologically each cell has the wisdom to avoid models and promises, and simply, out of sheer survival motives, cooperates with the cell next to it. Out of the terror of annihilation, man, like the cells of his body, will learn to cooperate, but not out of love or compassion.
      >This (species) has survived for many centuries, and it is going to find some way to survive. My point is this: Not because of love, not because
      of universal brotherhood, not because of all that stuff, but because of the terror of liquidating ourselves, we will learn to live together. You cannot hurt anybody without hurting yourself -- not psychologically, but physically -- only when we realize this, will we learn to live together. As long as each individual seeks his own security, there can be no overall security

      u.g. often says materialist positions because it's better at contradicting bullshit

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Could you please show me the source from which you extrapolated these concepts? Thanks

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *