>read a book on capitalism
Me: Fuck yeah, free markets rule!
>read a book on communism
Me: Fuck yeah, collective ownership is the answer!
Why does this happen? I just seem to latch on to whatever ideological system I've most recently been exposed to, even if it completely contradicts the previous one.
Just keep reading until your ideology gets more refined.
stop eating what's put in front of you without digesting it
Yeah same. I have no convictions about anything
It sounds like you keep an open mind, but maybe you don't retain much after you're finished reading? I would imagine an idea you thought was good about first book would conflict with the second.
You're a good guy.
You're dumb. Just try not to go pull midwit and frankenstien bits and pieces of whatever aphorisms sound reasonable and wise to you like some vapid centrist.
I recommend reading fiction, the themes are less overt so you won't feel guilty if you are suckered into its worldview, which you don't think you are capable of internalizing anyway. There is a difference between knowing something is true and actually believing it. If you don't seriously reflect on something and try to understand it outside itself, it's just going to fade away until you get the opportunity to regurgitate it like some sort of "fun fact". The ideological system or whatever else you are learning about has to be more than a novelty to you for you to be able to take it seriously with any sincerity.
"In the same way too, by determining the relation which a philosophical work professes to have to other treatises on the same subject, an extraneous interest is introduced, and obscurity is thrown over the point at issue in the knowledge of the truth. The more the ordinary mind takes the opposition between true and false to be fixed, the more is it accustomed to expect either agreement or contradiction with a given philosophical system, and only to see reason for the one or the other in any explanatory statement concerning such a system. It does not conceive the diversity of philosophical systems as the progressive evolution of truth; rather, it sees only contradiction in that variety. The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant’s existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another. But the ceaseless activity of their own inherent nature makes them at the same time moments of an organic unity, where they not merely do not contradict one another, but where one is as necessary as the other; and this equal necessity of all moments constitutes alone and thereby the life of the whole. But contradiction as between philosophical systems is not wont to be conceived in this way; on the other hand, the mind perceiving the contradiction does not commonly know how to relieve it or keep it free from its one-sidedness, and to recognise in what seems conflicting and inherently antagonistic the presence of mutually necessary moments."
is everyone who reads philosophy like this?
You're not dumb, shit just sounds good on paper but they're all flawed ideologies.
Because you’re naive, impressionable, lack ethics
You probably don't actually like to think, which is really common. Just subscribe to the lumpy blob so affects, social cues and hunches that form the basis for droll life in society. Just turn your brain off bro, back in the euphoria of the mob when your actions are applauded and cringe and grovel before the mob when you step out of line-- with no thought of rejecting its judgement.
Just continue your studies. It is no vice to get attached to a construct which appears to give you a greater understanding of reality but you have already noticed that this enthusiasm is transitory, you need to stay flexible. This is only possible by resisting your ego or base instincts like resentment or a libido dominandi, instead embrace a genuine pursuit of truth and if you can manage, ground it in love. Over time your views will become nuanced, incorporating insights from opposing systems, they will leave room for doubt. You will find that some ideological truths are only true at specific points in space and time or that some truths are of greater significance than others. It's all quite a bit more complicated than people think.
lol
Ouch.
How do I increase retention though? Just re-reading stuff?
Because you're a political lightweight
What specific books are you reading?
this
You are one of the "npc"s the kids keep talking about. Don't worry about it just continue with your normal routines.
Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman
The Communist Manifesto and currently reading Capital
You're learning. The more ideas you accumulate, the more refined your own worldview will become. Eventually, you will start to reject ideas you don't agree with. I assume right now you're not very educated, so new ideas appeal to you quite easily. This is not to say you're dumb, as you are clearly making efforts to learn more. Keep reading user
Many suffered from this same malady in the ancient world--flitting this way and that from one dogmatic philosophy to another--persuaded by all ideas in turn. Radical skepticism was their cure. Read Pyrrho.
Good reply
Cringe
this is dialectics, it means you are actually thinking about these things. keep reading and you will eventually shift into disagree with everything, and you have become Socrates
Capital is quite a bit more serious than the manifesto so that might help. Friedman is a known idiot, seems like you'll get there pretty quickly
Just keep reading what interests you.
Avoid people like this:
You seem very proud for an idiot.
not that user but Friedman is pretty retarded
you're probably underage maybe freshman year high school
Take notes on what you read so you actually have to examine what the author is saying instead of just getting swept along by them. When you've read enough you'll start forming your own opinions and have a foundation for evaluating what you read.
I do the same thing. I remember when I discovered ancaps in 10th grade and spent a solid 12 hours thinking it was the ideal political system before I realized I was being retarded. with less blatantly wrong systems and philosophy, though, I usually don't change my mind on my own
Yes. Just like learning an instrument you won't get much out of playing a scale only once.
Reading various and even conflicting ideologies is a great thing to do in order to understand other people's thoughts and arguments. The next step would be to reread or read further into any works which truly speak to you in order to discover whether you truly enjoy playing the bass guitar or just like the idea of playing it after plucking the strings a bit.
Also an user mentioned that these theories are all flawed, and that is important to remember when going all out with one: no ship is unsinkable.
kys
>248. Do not go with the last Speaker. There are persons who go by the latest edition, and thereby go to irrational extremes. Their feelings and desires are of wax: the last comer stamps them with his seal and obliterates all previous impressions. These never gain anything, for they lose everything so soon. Every one dyes them with his own colour. They are of no use as confidants; they remain children their whole life. Owing to this instability of feeling and volition, they halt along cripples in will and thought, and totter from one side of the road to the other.
This. Start developing a dialectical logic. Static metaphysic categories are a poison to the mind.
Just read more. I tend to let contradicting ideas be until I understand both enough that I can decide for myself.
I was like this but I've become much more opinionated and bigoted over time. Honestly, you have the right attitude, it's just that having convictions is more interesting and it sparks discussion unlike being perfectly balanced and open-minded.
Compared to Marx he's an idological child
read sacred economics
too much information in the book, too little in your head to process it with.
unironically just read philosophy and then go back to political theory.
Those are pretty vague things, bro. There's lots of room for specifics and deciding on what exactly you believe. Muh collective ownership and muh free markets don't really mean anything substantial.
obviously you're just not thinking for yourself
The whole point of books like that is to get you to agree with what they're saying
If you're thinking for yourself this shouldn't happen with everything
I'm the opposite of you OP. I find crippling flaws in eveything, even mathematics.
That and your pic suggest we should make children.
I’m not saying capitalism is good, but if you ever thought that collective ownership is the answer then please pic related
'Collective ownership' can mean countless things in countless contexts, stop being braindead.
Stop being a facetious shit-weasel. You know exactly what the context is.
I hope that girl is doing OK
Stop digesting what's in front of you without eating it. At least taste it, all you're doing is smelling.
Not only proud of being stupid, but of being of being a loser. Neuroses of a feather
best
>food analogies
Just read more, two books is hardly enough to understand where you are and what beliefs you truly hold. Ignore the angry anons in this thread we all start somewhere
>just keep reading bro
Remind me of people who suck at fighting games being told by other people who suck at fighting to just keep losing over and over again until it eventually "clicks" when really they all just lose interest.
I know how you feel OP, but by acknowledging you feel like you are giving into ideologies too quickly, you are probably on the right track. Just be willing to critically examine how realistic your ideas are and you will probably become more jaded in a healthy way. I would recommend reading about geopolitics to help learn how nations work, so you can test the Machiavellian reality against your ideal form of government.
Unfortunately, no.
You're not performing proper cognitive process. In other words have undiscriminative mind.
People are so proud of reading that they latch on to whatever they spent time on. Nothing bothers a nitwit more than a couple hours of "fruitless" reading!
Okay, to build up on it, try reading 2 other books(reading same shit again is boring) and note the arguments they make. See if they conflict each other, then check their reasoning and try to wager which one do you think is closer to the truth, based on both what you've read in these "new" books and what you remember from the "old" two, as well as some common sense you've gathered over your lifetime(for example some knowledge of history). This is the "forced" way of doing it, you may do it without noting or anything.
>Plays piano once, wow guess I'm bad at this and shouldn't bother spending time trying to improve my understanding of it
pretty much. if you are unreasonably bad at something you are obviously doing something fundamentally wrong and it isn't just going to arbitrarily "click" hoping it will is just going to get you to quit. It isn't normal to be an absolute shitter in something, if you don't think you are progressing at a reasonable pace or at all, you probably aren't.
double that sir.
no comment but i also struggle with this OP. especially difficult as i work in politics and have to disguise occasional crises of faith.
my rationalisation / way through it is trying to specialise in industrial policy and weird nudge reforms that basically everyone agrees are good.
Honestly I find the best thing to do is to go back and take notes. How you do it is up to you, but generally I like to read a book and then reread it summarising the argument and quoting key passages. So, for example, I recently read The Origins of Totalitarianism and after finishing the anti-semitism section, I read Imperialism but also reread and write up anti-semitism.
I'd recommend not taking notes concurrently with your first read, give your thoughts a bit of time to settle and see what you remember and what still confuses you (also if you know where an arguments going it makes it easier to understand). Either way, having to actually map out the argument is going to deepen your understanding and that in turn is going to make it easier to disagree with, or to apply to other things you read.
As opposed to? You're not really helping here.
Anyway OP, you should really read up on the history of how these ideas actually influenced reality. Look up the Paris commune, Otto von Bismarck's response to communist movements in German territory, Lenin and the October Revolution, the East India Company, how capitalism has affected the development of various nations under industrialization etc.
Fighting games really only make sense to learn in an environment in which both players have access to knowledge that potentially allows them to become competitive, including being able to view matches between players better than them and having people who can potentially teach them advances techniques that aren't explained in game.
Thank about what's being said, whether you agree or disagree with it, and why.
is this hegel
The fundamentals of fighting games are pretty intuitive and they are enough to preform well enough online and not lose to everyone. I've seen people who just don't immediately think something like blocking is all that important, and don't have the common sense to look at a characters normals and get a superficial sense of what they are supposed to be used for and what ones look good on the surface.
if you give someone street fighter 2 and they don't figure out simply throwing fireballs alot and doing the uppercut when they jump over it is a pretty obviously effective strategy on the surface, even if they can't execute it properly, they probably just aren't looking at the game the right way. You should never look at a fighting game and be overwhelmed. You don't need to actually know concepts like pressure, pokes, punishes, zoning, mixups, risk/reward etc to do them intuitively, even if you aren't applying them optimally.
It's overblown how good you have to be to have decent success at the very bottom of online play. you don't need to understand the "meta" you just need to play the game with common sense.
OP is getting props by people for being humble enough to recognize and share his inadequacy or whatever but it's not a normal thing to have that you can expect to just work though.
mark passages in the book mark pages write down the most important things you got from the book
>chikaposter
Ignore everything this user has to say