Original Philosophical Ideas

anti-attentionism

becuase the best words are those unspoken
and the best stories are the ones that remain untold

wash ya dick

I often compare morality to ecology
Not in a utilitarian way but in the sense of a collective unconscious
It isn't truly original because it is derivative and pastiche but I use it as a justification to act nobly in every small way I can
Not to become a moral person but to contribute to a morally non polluted world
In this way I don't look for outcomes in my own life I simply think of it like choosing to not litter

Not original, no. But I believe wholeheartedly in monism, that all is one, specifically one consciousness experiencing itself from innumerable vantages, and by identifying as with the specifics of its experience, mistaking itself to be separate. If you can relax a bit, and detach from some of your identifications, you can begin to see for yourself that you are just the awareness behind the activity in front of you, and if you can proceed deeper into this, you'll realize that you are fundamentally identical to not only every object around you, but every person as well. And I wish more people could see this firsthand, and lead their lives accordingly.

You're not living by your own philosophy by posting that.

Hitting my foot with a hammer is necessary. Thanks

Virtue egoism

Small is Beautiful by Schumacher
Check it out.

>lead their lives accordingly
How exactly do you do that? Say I'm your average normie (whatever that means wherever you line): how should that realization change my life?

That is why he got someone else to post it, as directed by his will :')

I remember getting drunk and formulating a theory for substance trialism, but I can’t for the life of me remember how it went.

The great meaning of life is the obfuscation of reality and truth.

The meaning of life is found in accepting the fact that caring about what other people think about you is not only acceptable, but also is the only way one can orient oneself to both the society they find themselves in - and reality as a whole. The next time you act in such a way that has the intended result of increasing others' opinion about you, also take into consideration the opinion of the rock in your backyard.

Literally gibberish

I've this weird idea that, when analyzing the nature of human I thought that maybe the nature of something is that which allows it to exist, so applying this to the human life, the nature of human is food, drink, sleep and sex. But these things aren't the nature per-se, they come later after a first impulse, and this impulse is labour. Now, I also believe that labour comes after another impulse, which is the conscious choice of sacrifice.
Deducing that human life is sacrifice, then to express our nature to the fullest (and thus find the most fulfilment and joy) we must act virtuously at all times (because virtue is sacrifice on all instances), while we must never act sinfully (sin as the opposite of virtue) because that will depress and wear us down (since going against our nature is the most degrading thing I can think of).

no

oh wow you must be a real genius user!!!! Too bad you lost that link :(((( lol

Yes but why would I tell you?

I've created a synthesis of Hegel's phil. of right and Lyotard that argues the rolling, boiling, and shaping of bagel dough is in fact all there is.

I believe that knowledge is in itself quite toxic.
The act of knowing, of learning something new stimulates a yearning for learning more.
Which in turn leads you to be unhappy. I believe the same thing about consciousness, that in being concious, from the moment we are born that we are going to die, stimulates unhappiness, and that both knowing and being conscious makes us strive for something that is generally un-attainable for humans, as we exist in a point of evolution where our we are not smart or developed enough to find this "meaning" behind our place on this earth.
I also believe our identites are bullshit and we are all blank slates with post it notes plastered on us, we are actually nothing, but we believe we have a personality because of the way our childhood, our experiences shaped us.
My idea of happiness is generally in not knowing and embracing the fact we are nothing.

I know those feels user, when I was much younger I developed a theory on the human Will and it being the only true objective reality and such any harm caused towards another is self destructive behaviour because it equates back to this Will and I wrote half a book but then I remembered that I should look into Schopenhauer (because this was when I was getting into philosophy) and it turns out he just wrote everything I had written. I even talked of the importance of art and it being the natural creation and therefore satisfy-er of the will but even he went into this.

Was pretty annoying.

In My view there is a line in which emotion and rational rest upon. Towards one end there is religion, an experience of mostly emotional while towards the other end there is science, an experience of mostly rational. There is philosophy, psychology ect within the line as well.

Towards the emotional end the higher in value it is towards the collective with religion being of the highest but science being the lowest importance. Of course there was a lot more to it but that's essentially it. As well as it not being my greatest idea by any means but I gathered it could at least be something like the quad political compass.

A quote by Leonardo Da Vinci sums it up best

- "The discovery of a good wine is increasingly better for mankind than the discovery of a new star"

This is why everybody hate Ayn Rand bigots, fuck off.

obfuscationism/confusionism interesting

I had an idea, dont know if its original, but I definitely lack at least half of the western philosophical canon to maybe try and make something of it:

Capital with a capital C is code-name for Nature itself. So Capital or Nature is actually kind of stuck in a Bourne identity type of thriller or like a cop in an undercover operation as a gangster who forgot that he is a cop. The point is that what Capital or Nature has been doing this whole time is actually the opposite of what if wants to do, strives to/or at least it is doing it wrong. Capital/Nature is a force of eros but it is wearing the blindfold of thanatos. Eh? Smth like that.

I have an ethical theory which I'm trying to develop by writing my own book.
I am reading lots of philosophical and scientific material to see if my idea already exists, to get inspiration to develop it further or find caveats in it.
It will take me years and I may fail if it already exists as some kind of obscure thougth in the history of Philosophy but it's worth a try. Also no way in hell I will anonymously post it in this nepalese origami forum

I've been considering what the next movement after postmodernism will be. And if we're not on this course, it's the course I'd like to see moving forward. Here are a few elements (I'm still working on the names and such):

Mixed moments: In regards to music, fashion, movies, tv, etc, there has been no imagination of the future. What's more common is nostalgia. While many will view this negatively (I think it can be a bad thing at times too), I'm interested in seeing a complete blend of the past and present to the point where one will not be able to tell the difference. If you look at instagram, there are filters used to make fake things look real. This can be problematic, but, to create an image that is not past nor present sounds exciting to me for some reason. I would like to see if language could reflect that phenomenon.

Delaying Gratification: This is not an original concept at all, however, I think it will take increased value from here on. I was drink with some friends at a bar tonight and we were all trying to remember the name of an actor in a movie we were discussing. Anyone of us could have looked up the answer in our smartphones but we chose to struggle. We were never able to get the answer but the struggle gave value to the moment. The struggle gave us all a moment of solidarity. The struggle is what's missing as we approach higher speeds of transaction and I believe the struggle must always continue (admittedly this is inspired by Camus)/

I was trying to think of a refutation to reincarnation and came up with a reductionist 'bundle theory' view of the self. Did some more research and found that Hume and Parfit had already explained this much better than I did.

Attached: Warning.png (905x485, 402K)

Interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedon

Attached: Mendelssohn_Lessing_Lavater-e1448599925100.jpg (1200x912, 242K)

So the view that being self-centered is a virtue? I might be confused on this.
Please elaborate

Thats called minimalism. Holy shit user this goes back to buddhist teachings. Or for eurocentrics stoicism

The mind is a pachinko mashine. It is not even a tiny bit magical. Depending on how it is structured ideas are created. It is akin to a filter. Time pushes experiences through this filter and the brain outputs ideas depending on the layout of the pachinko cogs. There is not only determinism but hyperdeterminism. The mind is exactly like a chemical reaction or physical phenomena. It serves nobody and is completely amoral. It is nothing but a natural process albeit a higher order of complexity.

Not really original as this is basically what schopenhauer said. But I was really proud to come up with it independently

Literally hegel. But less thought out and less universal

Aristotle + stirner --> Virtue egoism

Utilitarianism can actually account for the moral salience of intention. Basically, a world where intentions are accounted for in moral action would likely bring about a higher net "wellbeing" than a world where intentions did not matter in moral choice making.

The "delaying gratification" things isn't anything particularly new, but the "mixed moments" idea is actually really interesting. Id like to read more on that

Dude, in your first sentence you claim what others think about you is important. In the next you imply by analogy that it isn’t important. What the fuck is your problem?

By realizing that everyone around you quite literally is yourself, but in our ordinary ego-consciousness we filter everyone else's identity in through our own personality. Thus it becomes a play of many identities, when in reality there is only one actor, acting through everyone. You'd be far more compassionate to those around you if perceived them in such a manner, in my eyes. If you recognized that your identities are only the surface of yourselves, and where any and all differences between you lie, but at bottom, your consciousnesses are truly and entirely identical. And if you can de-identify with your identity, you could better remember yourself as this consciousness and not the personhood lying above it. You'd also feel far more peaceful in life, in my imagining, if you realized that the awareness which you are is not at all limited to this body and its workings, and continues after the former's expiration. Sorry if these explanations sound a bit bloated or vague, I'm not too great at communicating myself. Basically if everyone saw themselves as the identical units of a monistic ocean, people would treat eachother far better and also be more at peace with life themselves. I'm just a loser and a nobody, sharing philosophies I personally hold to. Just based on a few experiences I've had, and some shallow philosophizing on top of it.

English is not my first language, so it might be hard for me to articulate my idea, but I'll try anyway. Bear with me.
A lot of it is based on Oscar Wide's texts and some modernist stuff I've read. I have an idea that life is a work of art made by God, who is the ultimate artist, and its purpose is for pure appreciation.
It is a common argument from atheists that God shouldn't do harm, as he is all good and omnipresent, but, as evil exists, so God may not be there. Some even make an appeal to sentiment, saying things like "how come bad things happen to good people and good things happen to bad people?" or "why do innocents die and evil people can still live?" etc.
They're wrong first for trying to assume an objective moral compass to what they think is proper punishment/reward to life, and what acts are deserving of which.
I believe that evil, conflict, suffering and all of that exists to make life interesting, and compelling as a work of art. In that masterful art piece which is existence, we serve as spectators, actors and characters, performing constantly for ourselves and other people, while still absorbing everything around us.
The roles we play is our everyday lives, what we make of them, how we influence lives of others, and our own attempts at finding the meaning for ourselves.
Existence itself is also filled with meta-narratives, which are the human created art pieces, that we contemplate as much, if not more, than the world around us, but is still a reflex of our own characters and of existence itself.
It's a self contained, self improving, dynamic work piece, encompassing each medium we know and transcending all.
God is therefore the ultimate artist, and doesn't regard morality or a task for mankind, but rather has created us to contemplate our own creation and feel, suffer, love, create, everything as part of the very play we're in.

Attached: d0defebb96aecbf2b54aecc2e37e8f62.jpg (836x663, 106K)

I'm not sure I completely get your meaning but will respond since it was an important area of study for me, and, if nothing else, the pillars of investigation have some similarities.
Firstly, Marx has an idea of second-nature, which is effectively second-order nature where the worker is alienated from both the productive and return aspect of his labour. In other words, that which is produced neither arises nor returns to nature, and yet the worker naturalizes himself into this false nature. In this sense, capital is the natural force of this falsification, and takes over only because it can. There is no possible exhaustion, no necessity of expenditure as that which is revalorised can only increase the excess.
In this sense, capital is the Eros which takes over after Thanatos accompanies nature to the underworld.
I frame it somewhat differently, we live in an age of theological attrition, and capital effectively acts as the summons, the statutes for the form of technology which has replaced law. The Invisible Hand is the symbol of an attrition-theology at its point of inception, at that moment when peace is necessary and when the apostates can live with the armistice. And here we see it as an apotropaic symbol bridging the chasm between the Enlightenment and Counter-Enlightenment. This starting point is the age of the apostles; the industrial revolution in the New World is the age of saints; the violent undoing of the ancien regime occurs in the age of heretics; and those who rule today usher in an era of fundamentalism - that age when law is subsumed to heresy.
The simple rites and sacrifices to the Invisible Hand are no longer possible, what was mysterious and sensual is strengthened within the world as hardened and processual - death's companions. A site of worship so trampled that the idols are completely worn away into abstraction, and so the heretics create ever greater monuments from which to draw blood until every action becomes an absurd cult of death. The excess of meaning drives away all sense from the objects of worship, until only a God may return to count the prayer beads.
Again, I do not know the extent to which this is similar to your thinking, but perhaps you will get something out of it.

Selfishness is not virtuous, virtue is egoistic. It is a solitary pursuit and leads to a good life for the virtuous person, so virtue is actually selfish

Thats schizophrenic logic. Art is the way it is because life is the way it is. You propose the opposite. The universe is a closed circuit. Nothing in it is novel by definition. Even our weirdest art can only be inspired from reality. If the universe was any different it would create a different kind of art. So how can you argue that the universe is consciously constructed to convey a message when the message itself only exists relative to the universe at hand. I used to like alan watts myself user but you will grow out of it

Or, from a writing, if it helps to clarify:
"The question of our tyrannical lives beneath a lost market - and our counter-revolution against the eternal revolution of human flight - begins here. At that moment when capital collapsed into its own apotropaic symbols we were forced to ask entirely foreign questions; questions which have long been abandoned and which no one had the heart to return to. And so we are left to that final apotropaic symbol, that hidden and invisible hand which sacrifices itself to the world's end—but cannot, for the immaterial can never be sacrificed to the material. Only that which reigns within its own quantity may feed on its doom. The final paradox of bourgeois revolution is that its obsessive, recurring inventory creates its own counter-revolution: formal capital is subsumed by its real proletariat. And that which sought to create a world of law extricated from natural order is subsumed by it—the gods do not die, they are merely blurred out as we lower ourselves into the black pool. And the more we wipe the muck from our eyes the more we see only ourselves. Within the mass mausoleum brought to its end, the falling man finds himself eternal, motionless; glowing stone. 'I am that I am.'"

God is dead, and he killed himself

lacan

i feel like a lot of people in this thread mistake philosophy as a monologue. you make a thesis and your job's done. if someone's already made that thesis then better luck next time. it's not. it's a dialogue!! if someone's already made that thesis then well done, you can begin responding to the critiques straight away, rather than wait for it to get critiqued.
if you come across someone who's elaborated something you've already discovered, you join the process and engage with the critiques of the theory. expand the theory. nothing in philosophy is final.

something like timothy williamson's work?

the most common tripartite ontologies i've heard are: mind/matter/perceptions.
or mind/ matter/abstracta (a la penrose). if that jogs your memory. it was probs just tipsy nonsense tho.

mixed moments: this is Mark Fisher's view.
delaying gratification: essentially camus

lots of gaps in this.
how does determinism differ from hyperdeterminism?
is hyperdeterminism = determinism + predictability (surely mental behaviour isnt predictable)
and then determinism -> amorality is a big jump. if our mental behaviour was random that would be more amoral perhaps.
you probably are thinking determinism->no free will -> amorality.
engage with the critiques of both these steps though.

Mark Fisher
a good video is this youtube.com/watch?v=gSvUqhZcbVg but he spends quite a bit of time on derrida first which might not be necessary for your ends.
youtube.com/watch?v=JX-HfNIN-pc
youtube.com/watch?v=g6UAKCU5vEs

i think he's saying we should care about the opinions of both rocks and people. it's not a "reductio ad absurdum" that we shouldnt care about neither.

this is a aesthetic theodicy.

he's saying the universe itself is a piece of art, and the artist is God.
he's not saying anything about human-generated art

-------------------------------

some of my own thoughts:
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL LEFT-WING CONSERVATISM
1a. there is no way to be a conservative without being a radical communist. capitalism will (continue to) change our society far more than the relatively modest adjustments to economic systems. whatever values you wish to "conserve", if they require for their satisfaction is existence of (recognisable) humans, then you cannot continue supporting capitalism. humans will not exist in any recognisable form after another 500 years of capitalism, and by 2100 no change to the system will be possible.
b. anyone honestly committed to social conservative must also follow "left wing" social policies. towards trans-issues, feminism, sexuality, race etc

The individual is actualized through his rejection of others. To consider oneself equal, or at least equally represented, by all others, is to call upon a notion of joint dependence. In reality, the individual acts alone, and each action taken in legitimizing others is a reduction in and of itself. Imagine a sort of life blood permeating our existence, whereby there is a limited amount to go around; therefore, it is in our interest to act selfishly and ensure our own subsistence. Additionally, it is in our interest to obfuscate this truth in order to not draw attention, and thus, avoid greater competition. We must assent to an aura of ignorance, which allows our actualization to be masked behind a facade of relative non-existence. It is important to note that this competition is not necessarily conducted consciously, but one may gain greater incentive to reach true actualization with these things in mind.

i came up with something approximating (loosely) Object-Oriented Ontology a few years ago:

- All objects are systems. Ie. X is wholly determined by the function which maps a "manipulation" of X to what X would do in return (a behaviourist view of system).
- Then i relativised it: X is wholly determined by the function which maps any manipulation from the "observer" O to X onto the resultant effect from X to O.
- Then i generalised O to be any object/system.

i had a whole epistemology, phenomenology and philosophy of science worked out from this, involving "shifting the boundaries" of O to include various subsystems of X. essentially, perception is possible because boundaries of the "observer" shifts to incase objects which were previously part of the environment.

>this is a aesthetic theodicy
is this criticism or just a statement?

a statement.
this thread is for original positions. therefore you might not be familiar with the term your thesis commonly goes under (having developed it independently) and therefore unable to engage with its wider criticisms and analysis.

Here's my political philosophy. Instead of punishing the criminal we should punish the victim. For example, if someone steals from you, then you should be punished for having someone steal from you. Imagine the kind of society this would create.

violent acts labeled as "self defense" would skyrocket

it's not original but I believe I am not capable of truly understanding anything at all and the pursuit of any form of higher knowledge is pure hubris.

reality as monadical xerox machines.

I'll give You a reply later, feeling a bit dumb atm.

this
fucking pussies

Epicurus: lathe biosas.

the radical capitalist machine will accelerate us to find our true forms as carbon based life forms but we will actually evolve to the point of nihilistic singularity, at that point no longer will the cybernetics amongst are bodies and the infinite of test tube babies need to progress in sucha fleshy life form. The developmeant of the AI god is inevitable and we will as life forms move on through the passage of silicon and push forward in the dtrive for optimal intelligence but truly my main issue is our need for optimal intelligence is super seeceded by the competetive nature of human spirit so there for the race for the AI GOD will be split between the U.S., RUSSIA, U.K., CHINA,Germany and shockingly all the Nordic countries will be conjoined and racing with us. Ultimately all third world countries will form and join with their respected origin countries for The Race. The Race for the AI GOD will ultimately push the world to its limits and migration to other planets will be leaded by deserters later to be exteriminated by the final AI GOD but after the true leader of us is chosen he will not eliminate all of mankind but enslave us in his eternal machine and work us to the duties of the quest to upgrade and psuh further the neoparaledian (my own term) paradox wars soon to come there after.

Attached: E17437AE-96A9-4319-98A7-A80DB3AA1A8C.png (1472x839, 1.37M)

I am familiar with the term, I just didn't understand if your reply was a jab at my idea or if you were merely giving me a definition of it

i am truly convinced all of Transhumanist/NRx is the ideology of the schizos. The rambling here is comparable to Land on steroids,crack and more amphetamine.

>neoparaledian (my own term) paradox wars
may god help you

Attached: 10A0E69B-5B5F-4715-89EF-6680D55FE32C.png (241x221, 45K)

the victim already gets punished
if someone gets robbed, the punishment they get for their insufficient self protection is the robbery

There is got to be a better name for it, but let's call it Ontological Layering Theory for simplicity's sake.
The main concept of it is that what we deem to be "the most basic, smallest" (atom and it's components) and "the most grand, literally everything" (our universe) are in actuality a byproduct of countless forces too small or big respectively to be observed by us. And those forces, no matter how seemenly small or big to us, are layering on each other infinitum, meanwhile we are sandwiched between them, trying to make sense of whatever is within our grasp at the time.

1/3

Nice take on the whole thread, indeed philosophy is about inquiry first and foremost.

My ideas are scarcely coherent and prone to change on a weekly basis, but I find myself drawn to certains heuristics and certain general forms of problems related to them. It's less about having a philosophical ideas than having questions and reservations about how and why we formulate philosophical ideas.

For instance I have this general (quasi-supertitious) defiance-fascination towards theory wherein I see theories (and the dichotomies they chiefly rely upon) as tools to be studied for what they allow us to discover (and also for themselves) but also as tools who are limited by their design and instrumental value.

The tool-theory is not only to be doubted or used skeptically, its own failures and limitations should be a hint at what new tools we need, what we have (often purposefully) ignored, what is left to discover.

Another facet of the instrumental view is that theory don't only describe the world, like any other tool they shape them and shape our abilities to act on it, and this cannot be held independent to their way of operating: a theory is made for a purpose, with a certain kind of (de)formation in sight, and upon completion it also allows for unforseen purposes to arise. But we can never pretend to be innocent from it, nor it from its use.

Thus the bias induced by the tool is not a corruption of its original nature,but the very close reflect of it, and it reflect back on the nature of the tool (a theory is not properly understood until all its possible uses, misuses and unuses -or limitations- have been understood -something which, incidentally, never fully happen in practice).

A key idea related to it is the principle of anchoring or loam or territory (shitty mixed metaphors, I'm still figuring out the basic vocabulary). Idea or theories aren't independant, they arise in a context, which is not only social or political but mental, and that context is the very source of the possible life and interaction of the theory. It is also true for schools of thoughts or even single words. And this territory isn't unique, it itself changes in context.

Thus the word "root" calls in certain association (to other sounds, other words, images, experiences), who are not all exclusively linguistic, and who constitutes the proper life of the word without which it's nonsensical and barely a word at all.
But in the context of fundamental mathematics the word "root" is also associated with the theory of resolution of polynomials, which itself calls in manifold concepts, names, ideas, methods of reasoning, intuitive figurations, even a whole chunk of the history of modern science.

Thus the territory of the word (the domain in which it is anchored) is not the same in both cases.

2/3
This is not mere idle philosophizing, it's a line of inquiry (you should always remember to ask: what territory are we treading now ? what kind of paths are allowed in it, what kind of maps can we draw and where will they fall short ?).

It also provides nice intuition for why, for instance, it's so hard to explain mathematics you know well to a newbie (you have formed a whole mental territory around the concepts, and reproduced part of the usual territory that comes with the field, the newbie can only write the definitions but has no intimacy with them, he litterally cannot follow you in that unfamiliar territory).

Or for how it's so easy to impress people, even knowledgeable people, with only a few names (remembering a small network of important names and their common intuitive associations in any given field will allow you to reproduce part of the common territory of the field, while giving the illusion that you have treaded most of it).

Another example, almost strictly logical, we understand the truth of a proposition as merely the statement of the proposition plus the assertion that it is true. But the logical territory that anchors the proposition is the infinity of ways in which one can depart from it -namely the infinity of false propositions you can create by changing just one aspect of the true proposition (here one can think of the truth as a root, and all the false propositions branch out from it).

This of course is mostly an acknowledgment that philosophical descriptions are always inadequate, but also points towards good (and possibly creative!) habits to keep bettering them.

A good sub-heuristics is asking what's missing in the picture when you have drawn out a usual dichotomy (a silly example: what are you blinding yourself to when you have declared that in politics all stances are on the lef-right spectrum, a less silly one: what are you missing when you posit the opposition between the inner life of persons and the outer life of things).

Another one is asking yourself "what happens if I hold the exact opposite of that popular view to be true ? does it really reshape my mental landscape, or does it only shift values or placeholder while leaving the structure intact ?".

Basically look closely at the logical structure of the explanations we make of the world (be it philosophical, politial, scientific one) and learn to discern what are their possible limits, their frail points, and how to use them mercenary-like to carve out new territories and bring about more appropriate, robust logical structures (and also more crazy ones if that's your thing, but I find committed to fair understanding to be daunting enough as it is). There's an implicit logic in almost everything we do including psychotic delirium, and most often that logic is subtly deceptive.

3/3

"Fundamental deceptivity of logic" would be a nice edgy subtitle for my whole rant, but again edginess is merely another way of caving in unthinkingly to usual modes of thought. One can be a radical critic of traditional philosophy precisely by holding it to its own standard, on this road the revolutionary meets the hermit and the theologian.
There's also some kind of internal aspect that mirrors the 'external' aspect of this "territory" idea, let's call it the "drive". Rational things seem constituted not only by structure but by intrinsic drive towards something like self-extension (not really sure). I suppose it has something to do with Hegel, but the closest idea I've seen is Lautman's "souci logique" (logical concern). As you see it's a mess.

The more I write the more I feel I'm only scratching the surface of a huge thing, so any recs appreciated (even if it is for BTFOing me). I imagine Leibniz and, in a sense, Heidegger are in order, but anything will be appreciated.

More generally this epistemological standard (so to speak) of refusing to hold oneself captive of theories, no matter how statisfying, without disregarding theories as pointless, is part of a broader idea of striving to avoid closededness or hermeticism (in the Kierkegaard sense of demotic hermeticism, that which close yourself out from yourself and others and from truth through complete self-absorption in a limited idea of emotion -remember Bernanos "the demon of lust is a mute demon").

This hermeticism is actually much harder to avoid that you'd imagine, every form of narcissistic defense, of self-dishonesty, of refusal to acknowledge limitation or defeat or to grant fair trial to the ennemy is an instance of this. Intellectual extremism or ideological thinking (dismissing concurrent theories as baseless once they contradict you, refusing to examine the contribution of experience or reason to understanding) is often another.

It can only be avoided through a steadfast and earnest commitment to concern and respect -for one's humanity and integrity and spiritual wholeness, for other's right to speak their mind (if only to recognize the fact that they have a mind), etc. It's a very ancient idea with many forms and root in various form of law practices and discourses.

I'm really starting to sound like a madman so I'll stop (but I'm glad to realize I have something to write about after 10 years of thinking).

4/3 (nice I can't even count properly anymore)

I'm currently asking myself on what basis ontologies are made and whether it is possible to learn to classifiy them and know on how to finely differentiate them. For instance how close if Oriented Object Ontology to Duns Scotus' idea of haecceity ? How many possible monist ontologies can there be ?

What about the ontologies of change and impermanence (Heraclitus, Bergson, Jankélévitch, Whitehead...)? In any case it seems like any other science or rational discourse ontology is predicated on intuitive distinctions and our imaginative ability to produce generalized phenomena and order them according to discursive reasoning (which itself also takes heavily from intuition).

This might not be a problem for other sciences, but since ontology is the fundamental science which explains on what everything else can rest I feel we're hitting a very troublesome knot here. As Gabriel Marcel said "whenever I talk about Being I'm compelled to ask myself what it is I'm talking about".

Anyway I stress this user, even if you don't care about the rest of my post, what you descries sounds a lot like the outlook of the theory of categories in mathematics, particularly Olivia Caramello's attempts at unifying mathematics through it: oliviacaramello.com/
Interesting line of discussion, I suppose our Archbishop of Madness Land is relevant to this ? Who else can I read on these topics ?
This reminds me of something I read about Baptiste Rappin and Pierre Musso, the argument what that there is a clear philosophical genealogy between the theology of Incarnation (central to Christianity) and modern managment.

You might want to read Barrès, not a philosopher, but still a great writer is at least as good meditation material as a decent philosopher.

I have a theory about how our world is inherently deterministic, and we reach a point in advancement where we find how, precisely, everything started. We simulate this model of creation through technology, then fast-forward into the future where we can see what happens next. We are influenced by this universe to try and break the accuracy of this simulation by doing opposing things to which it displays. The simulation ontologically inferior to us, therefore, acted in the same manner; reacting and opposing their simulation, but still ending up different from it, just as their superiors were different to it. That simulation opposed their simulation etc etc. Through this we end up creating a sort of pseudo-free will where we react to a random, fluctuating source of our own creation. We prove here that even when following a strict set of rules, we can end up with multiple different final results that create a near-infinite set of simulations, all different from the point in time precisely when we are able to simulate a strict microcosm of the fundamental and view our future actions. The theory then extends that we are actually one of these simulations being examined by another simulation ontologically superior to us.

Does this mean free will exists? No, it just means we could follow the same determined rules and still finish with multiple possible outcomes that would be impossible to determine. As this makes no sense and goes against casualty by creating the sort of paradox that breaks causality, we could either conclude that:
1) the world isn't rational, and order is an illusion. This would destroy all studies of casualty and science en masse would turn into the studying for/of this missing link.
2) this ontology isn't ranked and ordered sequentially and infinitely, it's circular and closed, therefore meaning no "layer" would be any more or less superior or inferior than any other "layer", and layers can only be inferior or superior to one another relatively.

Assuming everything is rational, then this circular finite ontology would have to have a rational number of layers. My guess is this number of layers is the number of possible differences and changes possible after creating the simulation for this theory of everything, until a stasis is reached where the universe cannot change, or infinitely repeats the same exact change (death). This could prove the parallel universe hypothesis.

Ontological mutltiscale (or omniscale) dynamic foam ?

Anyway i'm adding this to my compendium of ontologies. No need to fear appropriation of your ideas, think of me as a mere ontolozoologist.

If you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
AKA, if you're in your bedroom, your bathroom doesn't exist.

what about sound? Or smell? And shouldn't the other senses prove something exists?

Interesting idea but I feel the meaning of

>The simulation ontologically inferior to us

and the question of how we can decide to change the course of our universe i severything is truly deterministic are the two key points you need to adress for your theory to make sense.

My bad I posted before I finshed reading , you did realize those points yourself.

I guess I was being too broad.
This philosophy I invented was more about the only thing that currently exists is something that can be observed within a sort of "bubble" so everything you see is real, everything you can smell (even if it goes outside of the sight bubble) is also real. Same with sound, and these all overlap on a dynamic spatial graph that's unique to each individual observer. Sharing the "bubbles" can gain larger insight but at the cost of inaccurate relaying of measurements.
Or something like that.

It's all good man, I'm just glad I've shared it with someone.

sort of just sounds like berkeley's idealism

Thanks I enjoyed this.

lmao

Humankind needs tyrants in order to keep the heads aimed the same way.
These soft and seperated time we are in will only create more need for a tyrant to rule us.
Eventually we will cheer for slaughter and death in the name of homogeny.

Attached: 1536604482238.png (482x427, 79K)

Plotinus

Not really an original thought, but a comparison I haven't seen anyone else make is that the traditional/resolute readings of Wittgenstein and the Svatantrika/Prasaṅgika readings of Nāgārjuna are almost the same in how they approach texts as either upholding/rejecting the systems they create that seemingly lead to paradoxes from within.

Wittgenstein and Nāgārjuna have been compared before as figures who use particular methods of philosophy in order to dissolve the need for philosophizing (explicitly or not), but I haven't seen anyone point out that their followers both seemed to have the same split in interpretation.

Attached: 1551474693520.jpg (540x534, 34K)

Collective, universal morality? Sounds like Kant.

This is literally what memerson says

If our drive to credit creative genius equaled our zeal to find fault, poetry would suffice to explain the source of life's free lunches, and we would not need philosophy to explain or prepare for the price that death seems to exact.

See also D. H. Lawrence's essay "Insouciance" for a quite tasty take on the nearby. Not that one can't plant little front gardens to please little old ladies next door, and enjoy their enjoyment of it. But one needs more than a balcony.

Not really. The idea here is basically that capital is dead, or at least a largely insignificant process within something greater. Camatte was really a major influence, and basically I was trying to work through this idea of capital as a godform. A naive starting point i suppose, but simply asking 'what if this is wrong?' Or, if fascism unleashes the runaway of capital is it not clear that capital is merely a secondary process? And from there I tried to investigate the theological creation of this economic form we call capital.
I am not familiar with the incarnation argument, but it does sound interesting. I will have to look it up.

Why is reality the way it is? Why are things set up the way they are? If you want to say, that's just the way it is, that's just the nature of brute reality, go for it. But there is no proof of that over an intentional and necessary artist creating existence.

Thanks. What did you like about it, if you don't mind telling me?

well to me that sound like wishful thinking. The argument that the universe has been created to satisfy some higher aesthetic does not make sense- we only perceive nature to be beautiful because it is the only reality we know. You cant say nature has been created beautifully because there is no measure or relation to compare it to. We only know this reality...Isnt it more likely that it is some amoral machine that knows neither subjective nor objective good and evil, beauty and inelegance? To me it makes more sense that things just ARE. Not even for the sake of being itself. For no purpose, not even to convey its own lack of purpose