>>184830

OK, but they don't give up that easily. They discreetly follow you then use new people to become your new "friends." If anything they're more careful this time around.

>>184831
Well fuck, this awfully much for just one guy. I'd get angry and start trying to toy with them to the extent that I could hide from them, and I would try all sorts of disguises. Depending on how severely they would creep on me, I might try to kill them in isolated instances.

>>184832

How specifically would you toy with them? And what if you killed one and since they knew where you were (one of them was there after all) they immediately got you arrested, the police may even be in on it. Remember that only a handful of activists were against the Truman Show. They literally risked drowning him to keep him in the show.

>>184833
Well it seems like I'm fucked from the start, in spite of any effort otherwise? Regardless this scenario only works if you have any level of trust in other people, so options or become a hermit or lose all sense of intrinsic meaning. There's no way after discovering the truth am I just going to play along until I die. The police are just another imposing force I would have to detain. Obviously the only way to attain escape is deception or murder. Truman used the former along with sailing skills. Still I would get some puss from one the actors before I skip that shit.

>Can you prove or disprove the Truman Show

Easy.

If Truman managed to break through to reality, we all can break through to reality.

Therefore, what you experience is reality.

Chaos theory motherfucker, you can't create a perfect system. Life finds a way.

>>184853

>And what sort of thing do confident individuals want to say? Because it's not this kind of stuff.

...what?

>>184854
What I'm asserting here is that confident individuals do not act in this manner, not because they are restraining themselves in any way, but because they genuinely do not feel the need to.

>>184851

I'd say that children are exactly the demographic he seems to cater to. Only children would see his style as attractive, because they're insecure and cling to "bad" words as a sign of strength, and that's what they'll be drawn to.. While adults usually recognize them not as bad, but just unnecessary, akin to using "um..." in writing. Same thing as sweeping generalizations, kids see them as a sign of knowledge because they mirror their simplistic view of the world, while adults see them as what they are, meaningless noise.
And when I say children and adults I'm not talking about age, more of attitudes. I have both those attitudes, and they come out depending on the situation and the topic.

If he's actually consciously using them for a purpose, I can only imagine it to be to get the attention of the people he's criticizing in order to draw them in the debate. However, more often than not, this way of getting attention, like trolling, rarely brings about any meaningful discussion, but rather bitchin fits or dismissal.
So am I missing something here?

>>184851

>Confident individuals say exactly what they want to say, which is what Icycalm does.

There's a world of difference between confidence and shamelessness. Assertiveness is indication of confidence, namecalling and unwarranted arrogance are not.

>>184731

You've been since the start labelling Alex's work "trash" based on the presupposition that "value judgments" are in any way bad, or undesirable — or even that "value judgements" could ever possibly be inexistent. You've kept repeating the same about Nietzsche's works. About how he remains a "lowly figure" because of these nasty, mean "value judgements".

Newsflash: an opinion is a "value judgement". To CRITICIZE, to SELECT, to CHOSE, one must NECESSARILY make "value judgements". And, contrary to what you want to transmit, it's PRECISELY these "value judgements" that are valuable in a philosopher's work. The better the philosopher is, the most valuable are his opinions.

Now, the thing with opinions is that when you begin philosophizing YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING. What must be grasped first of all — before ANY opinion ("value judgement") is given — is how everything works. Before choosing health from sickness, you must first understand WHY everything is as is.

So Nietzsche, for example, before writing about how weak and ugly Socrates was, and on the other hand, how great and intelligent Heraclitus was, had first of all TO GRASP THE NATURE OF THIS UNIVERSE — which he beautifully expressed through his will to power. It was only after this that he selected and separated and condemned what was wretched ("in his opinion") from what was great, LIFE-AFFIRMING and health. This is why Nietzsche says he's a Yes-sayer, despite shouting huge fat No's throughout his books; he first says Yes to life and THEN says No to everything opposed ("in his opinion") to said life. (Even though these things opposed to life are STILL life itself, which is what Alex means by saying everyone's right (i.e. in reality, there's is nothing "wrong" with anything whatsoever, but... I digress)).

Anyway, to conclude, I don't think you have understood any of Nietzsche if you disregard him based on "value judgements"; likewise, I don't think you have understood anything of Alex's words.

>>184532

>I remember when I read 1984 in high school I thought that theory was retarded.

Why did you think it was retarded? We're hopelessly drowning in language. Very near everything we do as a part of the modern developed world is filtered through language. The term "infant" comes from the Latin word "infans" meaning "without speech," because the ability to use language is the most important skill babies don't yet have, next to not being able to shit yourself, which is less of a skill and more of a thing to avoid.

Further, you can't listen to a speaker of your own language and focus on the raw sensory input the same way you can with a speaker of a foreign language because your brain's habitual engagement with language eclipses the actual sounds you're hearing as an object of your conscious focus. Similarly, you can't look at this text the way you can look at text in an alphabet you're unfamiliar with because you're too prone to seeing the meaning your language has taught you instead of the actual image that appears here.

I'd have a hard time coming up with anything nonphysical that could influence your thoughts more than (or even just on par with) language. Your upbringing as a Christian might make you think certain Christian type things in certain Christian type ways, but that's just a TV show while language is the TV channel. What you pick up as an English speaker in terms of context, idiom, and connotation make even the most philosophically divergent two English speakers have more in common than two philosophically similar people with different native languages.

http://www.graaaaaagh.com/2012/08/ideography-pseudology-propaganda.html

>>184786
A-are there more philosophy comics like this?

>>184856

>A-are there more philosophy comics like this?

Unfortunately, yeah. I don't understand the appeal. The one you're responding to doesn't really even say anything except "hegemony is hegemony." Social philosophy's the worst. The whole point of philosophy's supposed to be drilling down towards more and more fundamental truths about reality, while social behavior is as constructed and non-fundamental as it gets and not really worth studying beyond using information about it to better sell people shit.

>>184863
I noticed that it was kind of redundant too. I mainly just enjoy the ridiculous faces.

I don't know why you have to generalize about a whole field of philosophy because some comic said something redundant. I've never really thought of "social philosophy" as something unto itself. I hesitate to agree with you for fear that you think Analytic philosophy is somehow more interesting, but I think I get what you mean. Marx is one of my favorite philosophers because of the negative, critical aspects of his thought, but I can't reconcile myself with the positive, certain things he said or founded--they're arbitrary, inductive reasoning from standalone conclusions, not holistic--and that can be generalized to all of political philosophy. But that's about the extent to which I agree. The interplay between various theories is still interesting.

>>184743
No! Meditation would be a lot less confusing, and less of a topic of discussion overall, if it were called "the natural shit you can't help but do, like taking a shit, like blinking, and like getting angry, furthermore, meditation is just another word for 'understanding' or 'an instance of learning' or 'clarity'."

>>184743
Which is why some prefer to call it "contemplation".

Meditation would be a lot less confusing if it was just called mruzz

>>184747
shut up.

Psychologist here

The reason I personally advocate for mediation is because of this simple idea

Most (not all) mental illness's stem from what can be called "Disorganized thinking"

Deficits in the way they process information, and detect signals. (Information processing model/Signal detection theory)

See with illness's such as say Schizophrenia, or PTSD, these are MIND issues. And what antipsychotic drugs attempt to do is manipulate the brain side of things, neurotransmitters, dopamine levels etc. But the problem is those are just the observable effects of these illness's and not tackling the illness itself.

Now with mediation, meditation can be a great way for people to get control over their thoughts. I always dealt with anxiety in my late teenage years and meditation really helped me


You see with meditation you can learn the ability to observe your thoughts rather than engage them and I always find this incredibly useful, especially with anxiety.

Now while meditation alone certainly wont cure you of a serious mental disorder alone, it can absolutely help. Things like finding inner peace, positive introspection all that type of shit. So for the purpose of asking advice from strangers on the internet saying they should go meditate is probably one of the better answers you'll get

>>184789
When you set up a site let us know
This is the best thread I've seen on an imageboard in a while

>>184803

Tomorrow I'm sending my Gambian buddy D15,000 (Gambian Dalasi), which I will send every month. D15k is a year's wage there only for top professionals. A Gambian teacher's wage with a masters degree is D1300 per month. So she will be making D180,000 per year lol.

Will be interesting to see what she does with it. She lives in a shack with holes in the roof and had to drop out of school because she couldn't afford the D150 to keep going to university. Gambians have a history/culture of handing money out to everybody so I'm confident she won't just build a palace and not share the funds, though I don't care anyways, it's unconditional income she can do whatever she wants. Pic related, it's her. No name of course cuz I don't like parading people's real names if I don't have to.

I also code anonymous Android custom builds for shady people here in Canada that wish to avoid surveillance, and a guy is leasing my phones for $60k payment and dropping his Blackberry biz. I'll send her $10k of that see what happens. That's D400k lol. Their soccer players don't make that much.

She's literally some random girl I found on a dating site and then I paid her to Skype to see she actually exists. Lol here's half a million Dalasi do whatever you want.

Speaking of random people, I helped out this guy in Nigeria (after confirming he was real) with $600 http://www.nairaland.com/1271883/all-nairaland-please-need-financial/2#15830942 if you haven't figured it out, I'm "Jason from Canada"

Even if I am getting scammed, it's still fucking Africa and everybody there is desperate except the elite dictators and their small circle. Even a scammer has a family to feed, so big ups if I got scammed, I'd be doing the same thing if I was stuck in Lagos.

>>184857
durrp forgot the mention, this is all tax credits. I will get most of this all back next year, all of it if I'm creative. so essentially, this is free for us in the west to pay people in abject poverty a monthly unconditional income. you'd be paying this much anyways except to the government in taxes.

i'd rather they get money than my fucking clownshoes federal and provincial corrupt regimes.

>>184858
Why do you get that much tax credit? And is it even legal to do this?

>>184859

I can claim charitable donations, up to a maximum of 75% of net income in any year and receive all of that in a tax credit. So essentially I pay barely any income tax, because I give these girls a monthly donation as an unconditional basic income.

Yes it's legal, well here in Canada anyways. I paid a lawyer $1600 to set this up. I'm probably the least shady charity in Canada and most transparent. All of it can be traced through money transfers, better than the charity they just busted here where the admin was taking almost all the donations and driving a mercedes SUV around.

>>184821
Good point, but I think it's more a result of how the individual views gender and which one they feel better represents their personality.

>>184805
That's truly interesting.

>>184821
What state? What state will your children be in? What does it matter?

"Alone I sat | when the Old One sought me,
The terror of gods, | and gazed in mine eyes:
"What hast thou to ask? | why comest thou hither?
Othin, I know | where thine eye is hidden."

Sex is genetic
Gender is social

>>184827
Although this sounds progressive, it's actually just a different take on the traditionalist view. Once you realise that gender is a social construct, the next step shouldn't be to simply pick which option you like the most. The next step is to disregard the preconcieved ideas society has for you.

>>184793

>I didn't say a gender role was more dysfunctional did I?

I was being sarcastic. I was saying that.

> I think a man without a woman is just as functional as a woman without a man.

I don't, especially after socialization.

>deep evolutionary duality of man and woman
>mate picking which is influenced by culture

Isn't it possible that, through artificial selection, one sex could become a parasite upon the other, maybe even losing regard to reproductive fitness because they value/are valued by some sort of decadent unreliable indicators?

>>184579

>"My name is Susan, I'm a warm compassionate mother and loving wife, whose a CEO of one of the top 5 corporations in the country."

>We have these schemas of ourselves to give meaning because we don't understand why we're living them and since they will one day end we should put them to use.

You're saying that how a person describes herself is personality I think. The concept is more about what people tend do in a given situation than how they perceive themselves, don't confuse self-perception to personality.



>>184733

The same for you. The one personality that exist in a singular instance is the continuous process of the brain of said person. Whatever pictures people have of themselves or each other are constructs created by them alone and thus nothing compared to the full personality profile of an actual individual.

OP when people ask who are you? (to me) what do I say?
Or when people say, introduce yourself or tell me about yourself

Or in general, when people ask who YOU are, what do you say?

>>184759

Not OP, but I'd say these question seem meaningless to me because they're so vague. Also they lack context so I can't even make a guess as to what they'd want to know about me specifically.
Not knowing anything, I'd say the first thing that comes to mind, like things I enjoy doing, or what job I work for, things that I do in my life basically. If they're truly interested in something else about me in particular, they'll correct the aim themselves.

"Modern human" history is ending. Psychedelics will soon be transferred into cyberspace. That is, a truly developed form of it will be created in the neoshamanic realm of virtual culture and it's revived orgiastic behavior. Humans will again have access to the realm of consciousness that previously existed only in the subconscious. All beliefs will merge into one, religious and scientific epiphanies included. It will be like a set of scientific or cultural references to themes of human behavior, all stored in virtual space. It'll be enough information for the future generations to ponder on, but first we'll have to bring about the Archaic Revival in order to collect this data, that is, to make the experiences of the now really about the now, and as widely accessible to genuine people as possible. Not all psychedelic people are genuine yet.

>>184843
It's really very easy to interpret any period of human history, if you have access to data, but that's becoming more and more irrelevant now. Nobody knows what tomorrow will bring. We may just have to destroy 98% of our population.

OP here.

Heh, we've all got eerily similar thoughts. As I said I am an absurdist, and a materialist by practicality. I see ultimate truth about the meaning and existence of the Universe as impossible for the human mode of being to realize. It thus doesn't matter for us if the universe has meaning in the first place. I believe as humans we should strive to be just that, human beings without shame of being human, inferring moral choices from emotion as well as rationality and embracing mistakes and shortcomings as if they were successes. The strive to live by virtues and being bigger and greater than oneself is almost of spiritual importance in my eyes, and the quest for those things has more value than the goal itself.

>>184692
and when emotion conflicts with rationality what do you do then?

>>184712

>and when emotion conflicts with rationality what do you do then?

That depends on the circumstance in question.

I view emotions as reactions or states, so they are neither good nor bad. They tell you something about being human that pure logic just can't, and should thus inform your decision making(but not rule it). In my eyes human rationality is just as undependable as emotions are.

I believe that there is some simple starting rules (like the rules in the game of life) that creates more complicated patterns and the more complicated ones creates others.If we question the reason behind creation of these patterns I think the reason is "because they can" if there isn't a logic imperfection behind a creation(it can be everything,idea or physical object etc.) it can be created.For example:Think a rod which is n*meters,now spin it around,the rod draws a circle that has a radius of 1m and perimeter of the circle is 2n*pi now.So there should be a coefficent that used to calculate the perimeter of the circle,and it's pi! so pi is created because it can be created(or it must be created).So I believe that raw material used to create universe is just simple 1 and 0 logic.
If we come to "Do you believe to God?" question;I think we must first define what is God.If we assume that God is the entity that created everything,then God is the simple rules that I talked about.If we assume that God is the entity that controls everything,then God maybe exist maybe not,but even it exist,it must be controlled by the rules that I talked about.
If we come to "Is there a fate?" question.Yes,according to the 1 and 0 rules.There is only one way to go.I don't believe "randomness" exists.
About motivate topic,you simply don't need extra motivate resource that can do everything,but it might help I guess.
My world view is this,but I still don't know how can I call it,I can't categorize it.

I'm an Absurdist too but that's kind of a boring thing to say you are I think, like what are we supposed to talk about? It's negative. My positive thoughts tend toward Christian atheism and Anarcho-primitivism. I also admire Epicureanism and the non-attachment philosophies of the East but I don't have as much background in them as I do in Continental or Christian thought.

I guess alongside Absurdism I tend to believe in a certain strain of the perennial philosophy or mysticism, that what is good is also good for you, hermeticism, humility, stuff like that. I think you should ride out this thing called life just to see if you can keep making it more agreeable to yourself, and that the way it beats you down is spiritual and will make you more flexible and agreeable to it. Sure, you should be rigid about some things (not certain things), but who's to say what or why? Dream and then let your dreams be eroded, dream some more. Imagine Sisyphus, happy. You're just an original combination of unoriginal ideas, desires, interests, and phenomena in general. Don't freak out if they get ripped away from what's left of the nucleus of yourself; they don't stop existing, and will reemerge again.

>>184823
Check out Beyond Good and Evil (Nietzsche), it's got plenty of vexing questions and such that relate back to Plato.

>>184693
so how does that work? does a male rape another then go "ok im the alpha male, you'll do what i say" and somehow being assfucked makes him less of a man?
WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

>>184715

>WELL WHAT IF YOU TIED SOMEONE UP AND GAVE THEM VIAGRA AND THEM MOUNTED THEM WITH UR ANUS?

If you videotaped it, you'd probably get Internet famous.

>>184715

well actually its more like, the beta male lets the alpha male fuck him in the ass cuz it not only feels good but also makes their relationship feel right. accepting a dick inside you is an emotionally vulnerable experience and letting another dude fuck you is saying, consciously or subconsciously, I trust your manly superiority in this

>>184760
I don't know a human being, male or female can enjoy things as big as a cock throbbing their asshole. They all seem to have to be trained and women take it in the ass way more than homosexual men (truefax, sodomy is more common in heterosexual couples). I've had a finger in there to make me cum from my gf sometimes to touch that g spot to make me finally cum when I am binging on speed with her but something large like a cock that also moves in fast and hard inside your ass...no, it is not really natural to enjoy this, it is a nurtured practice, not making it evil, but I imagine if i was this kind of guy who likes to be pegged by a woman (lolno) I could be trained into enjoying it, I just don't enjoy pain, even sometimes she hurt me with just a tiny finger trying to push on my prostate so that's why it doesn't even happen often.

tl;dr Saying that anal sex feels good by default is a fallacy.

>>184783

Vaginal sex has historically been nasty business for most women because people weren't taught about G-spots, clitoris and so forth until the late 60's early 70's, before that sexual relations were taboo in public speech

I guarantee you if you fuck a woman who isn't horny, or is frigid or whatever, she will not have a good time.

tl;dr saying that vaginal sex feels good by default is a fallacy

Why not just buy an encyclopedia on philosophy and read it? Internet is great, but sometimes books are just better suited for pursuing knowledge.

You seem to have a problem (or problems) you can't solve, and you seem to believe that the only thing you can do to solve it is to do something about your lack of general knowledge. Well unless your need to pass an exam, ace an IQ test, or impress someone with knowledge, it won't help you.
I don't think you're stupid: from the few lines you've written you seem pretty self-conscious and open to accepting other point of views.
Maybe the hurdle right now is that you feel deeply discouraged. If this is the case, going the road you want to take might just take you back to the starting point, because the problem will still be there, or in the worst case, take you to be even more hopeless because you won't get results. Even in the best case scenario, if some book accidentally make you acquire more clarity, it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.
Whichever way this road may take you, it could be a pretty long journey before it has any effect.

I don't know why I took you to heart, maybe because the last line resonates very strongly with my past (and present) experiences.. I even went this route looking for a solution, just like you seem to be doing. I say all of this so this won't sound too weird:
If you want to talk to me, I'm available, just say so and I'll drop my e-mail address.
If you want to open a thread on /qq/, post a link, and I promise I will answer it and follow it.
If you decide to go the knowledge route, I will help you this way too. I have some experience in searching for answers while feeling lost.

Oh yeah, and things like ego. You can't ignore the fracturing of the mind into the equation. I hear about those things, but I can't tell what thoughts of mine come from where.

>>184718
because I'm not sure an encyclopedia would answer my question on whether it exists, without reading the entire thing. I was hoping someone would know if it existed.

>>184729
So you believe language can't change anything, or at least a specific level of communication through it. I'm not sure that I believe language only helps in the imaginary world (where on one extreme maybe it could get you more money, but what would that really change?).

>it won't take you anywhere if you're not willing to use it to face directly whatever is troubling you.

and you don't believe language can change that? is there a set of experiences that will change that? I hear about all these experiments on children that instill fear in them, make them insecure and dependent on others well into adulthood, but I don't hear enough detail that shows how you can reverse it.

Yeah, sure on the email.

>>184739

Hey, >>184729 here. Sorry for the holdup, I've been busy these days. I put my email address here: http://pastebin.com/5vhbB8tm

>>184703
>>184694
Yeah you're high. If all you're going to do is a present a disagreeable position and refuse to supplement reasoning you are going to be assumed either stupid or empty handed. Tho it's becoming apparent that you're both.

Also for those who don't understand this chumps intent, he's messaging his own vanity.

"I do not wish to inform, I have been claimed a genius!" Claiming this is what others say of you does not negate self proclamation.

"Confidence is the food of the wise man and the liquor of the fool."

Now I'll dissect your position on happiness despite your lack of an argument. But you'll have to ask for it.

>>184706
Yeah people who think good is relative to the subject or that good is what gives them pleasure are not worthy of trust

>>184706
And if you determine what is good by total benefit to others you're neither a hedonist or a subjectivist so you don't have anything to worry about

>>184705

Can you make an example of this other kind of satisfaction?

>>184716
An example, like, an illustration? Well... being hungry, but not thinking of your hunger while you lay out food for someone else, food which you will not be partaking in. Feeling satisfaction, despite your hunger, in feeding them. Not noticing your hunger as a negative thing which must be remedied, but simply accepting that it is, and feeling satisfied in the knowing of what is and in the acceptance of what is. Another one... waking up at 5 am to work, walking out into the bitter cold, getting to work and working 12 hours, feeling your hands growing tired but not noticing this as a negative thing, simply doing the work that lies before you, not noticing that there is still much time before you go home. Feeling satisfied, despite the pains of labor. Not because of the pains of labor, that would be pride. Being totally irrelevant to the current status of your sense, feeling satisfied by the ever presence of them, whatever they may be, because that is existence. Taking a hot bath, eating large amounts of delicious food, allowing a wide smile to form across your face, feeling the warmth of a lusty woman nearby, being satisfied about what is, and not fearing the disappearance of these luxuries. Existence will throw many things your way, however the satisfaction is unmoved, not declining or increasing, because it simply notices that it is. Recognizing senses as a condition of existence, and not as existence itself.