Any bloomer type book recommendations?

Any bloomer type book recommendations?
Happy,optimistic,spiritual,Well being etc.

Attached: 7d6.png (1024x1024, 1M)

Other urls found in this thread:

obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm
youtube.com/watch?v=MyjDZhLTxk4
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

So... unrealistic, idealistic, and immature? Seems to me that the Communist Manifesto might just fit the bill.

what is the reverse of Schopenhauer?

The Pali Canon
obo.genaud.net/backmatter/indexes/sutta/sutta_toc.htm

Attached: buddha.gif (466x625, 205K)

Emerson, Epicurus, late Nietzsche, dhamma books on loving-kindness

lmao retard.

This is to be done by one skilled in aims
who wants to break through to the state of peace:
Be capable, upright, and straightforward,
easy to instruct, gentle, and not conceited,
content and easy to support,
with few duties, living lightly,
with peaceful faculties, masterful,
modest, and no greed for supporters.

Do not do the slightest thing
that the wise would later censure.

Think: Happy, at rest,
may all beings be happy at heart.
Whatever beings there may be,
weak or strong, without exception,
long, large,
middling, short,
subtle, blatant,
seen and unseen,
near and far,
born and seeking birth:
May all beings be happy at heart.

Let no one deceive another
or despise anyone anywhere,
or through anger or irritation
wish for another to suffer.

As a mother would risk her life
to protect her child, her only child,
even so should one cultivate a limitless heart
with regard to all beings.
With good will for the entire cosmos,
cultivate a limitless heart:
Above, below, and all around,
unobstructed, without enmity or hate.
Whether standing, walking,
sitting, or lying down,
as long as one is alert,
one should be resolved on this mindfulness.
This is called a sublime abiding
here and now.

Not taken with views,
but virtuous and consummate in vision,
having subdued desire for sensual pleasures,
one never again
will lie in the womb.
- Snp 1.8

stoicism unironically

Attached: chrysippus.png (500x796, 139K)

Siddhartha is perhaps the most bloomer one i ever read

weird cause the philosophy of the book seems to align with Vedanta more than something like Buddhism
should've been titled 'Shankara' instead of 'Siddhartha' desu

Man and His Symbols

you doomer/bloomer retards have never heard of manic depressive. enjoy your up. the down, she hits likka truck

>feeling good and whole is for children, now get back to work

t. miserable boomer

I've been high of life for couple a years now dunno what you talking about. Its all about perspective and how you see the world.

Attached: 1497116017091.png (804x799, 10K)

Boook?

Attached: 1561831454805.png (1978x1157, 203K)

Who are you?! Stop blogposting now!

I'm only 24 years old.

take the motherfucking green pill and de-robotize yourselves, bloomers!

Attached: Prometheus Rising.jpg (297x475, 57K)

Literally me

Being a Boomer is less a generational status than a state of mind.

Everythin by Henry David Thoreau.
Moby Dick, while not purely optimistic its very life affirming.

Dominic by William Steig. I picked it up for 25 cents at a thrift store, it was worth that price and more. I felt really happy after finishing it.

Attached: D69F045D-B631-4167-86C8-485F57D20895.jpg (318x470, 39K)

I can second dis fren

Attached: 4L_5197jlcD.jpg (852x944, 79K)

just cause someone is happy and positive doesn't mean they're manic depressive ya fucking retard

The Bloomer meme was obviously made by a guy who bought into the Doomer one and tried to change his own mind by creating a meme.

Attached: 137035.jpg (1452x1127, 128K)

Incorrect. Hate to break it to you but words actually have concrete meaning. It's what separates us from the animals.

Pretty much

a thousand plateaus

Attached: 1000platos-1914-14.gif (864x648, 64K)

I believe it was Oswald Spengler who said that optimism is a form of cowardice. Don’t cope, just accept that reality is shit. Why would you want to delude yourself?

Damn, life must have been boring as fuck in those days if that is what constituted a deathly funny situation.

If I had a time machine I could conquer kingdoms by bringing a joke book with me

hell have you ever seen an old chaplin film? people used to roll on the floor with laughter from that stuff...man, the things people used to find funny

He had it backwards. Optimism is actually a form of bravery because an optimist dares to have hope in spite of the fact that reality is shit. The optimist constantly takes the risk of being disappointed. Pessimism on the other hand is a win-win situation: either you're right, or things are better than expected. Pessimism is the real coward's cope.

Lying to yourself in order to fee good is pretty cowardly though

yes, believing everything that isn't burgerpunk miserabilism has to be inane, childish, or sentimental is a boomer thing. i've seen it and heard it all my life. you got boom'd.

ah yes, all joys are illusions, all misery is real and justified. you're deluded

well, yeah. the prospects for civilization are pretty grim.

Also keep in mind that reality is something we can only experience subjectively, so to what extent it is shit is largely a matter of perspective. Keeping this inheretn subjectivity of being in mind, any way we choose to look at reality is essentially delusional, so why not opt for a form of delusion in which you're not completely miserable?

those premises are dumb and i dont accept them.

The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand

I don't agree with any "punk" schools of thought but nice try.

Reading this now actually, not too bad. Don't trust any systems completely, don't take yourself to seriously, and oh check out Tim Leary's 8 circuit model of consciousness.

Attached: elaine2.jpg (366x423, 16K)

this is the most bizarre one I've ever seen

Please don't tell me you don't accept the premise that our experience of reality is inherently subjective and that it's therefore largely a matter of perspective? Because that's pretty much universally accepted, and has been for a few centuries.

7 habits of highly effective people.

Ignore the absolutely stupid title. Its a great book on management and personal responsibility.

Attached: dadaamer.png (1600x1116, 310K)

Self-help books can be a great choice for bloomers, but IME they're among the most subjective form of literature: I reckon the author's outlook has to be a good match for your personality. I know of several people who loved Covey or Tolle and claimed it changed their lives, but it's not for me. I did very much enjoy The Art of Happiness by the Dalai Lama though.

not
>bluemer

You had one job

Attached: bluemer.png (1668x1298, 317K)

based

You should have been there

Probably. I'm reminded of a school trip back in elementary. A teacher had laboriously made us all cups of lemonade because it was hot as fuck, he had placed them on the grass and just as we were about to get our drinks, this big retarded elderly bouvier just walked across them, knocking over every single cup, completely oblivious to what he was doing. We almost died of heat stroke, but to this day it remains one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I don't know why a dog knocking over some plastic cups was so funny, but it was goddamned hilarious.

>Boo hoo hoo I'm a whiny asshole because I'm sooo smart

Attached: 1557544540341.png (616x319, 106K)

you could genocide by laughter with racist antisemite jokes

Fabricating perceptions are whats at the core of Bhakti Yoga, Deity Yoga and Samadhi type practices. Pretty much all mystical practices I'd imagine.

t.17 years old faggots

keep lickin those boots fren

The Decameron By Giovanni Boccaccio, or anything by Petrarch. They lived through the black plague and yet still found joy and peace in life. Dante as works as well, but do some pre-reading.

Attached: ob_1560ba_florence-03-offices-5.jpg (846x1127, 157K)

Bookchin

Attached: read em.png (480x480, 148K)

agreed

Prove it

Language evolves, pleb

youtube.com/watch?v=MyjDZhLTxk4

Chaplin is funny you fuck

I thought I’m the only one who can’t stand Chaplin

melancholy is cool and all, but it gets tiresome after a while

>Hurr hurr hurr, I'm a bitter piece of shit because I'm sooo mature

Attached: 1542561174638.png (616x319, 113K)

Absolutely based.
Pic saved.

hope is the mind denying a fear. optimism is just denial. pessimism is an affirmation of life in spite of life.
Do you chose your subjectivity?
Samadhi is about detaching from perceptions. bhakti yoga is just a way of fusing a self generated sound with a devoted appreciation of each instant.
Arch-splitter, ameri-chauvinist and first worldist completely deluded about human nature. Why bother, just another stupid idealist.
> it gets tiresome after a while
what doesn't?

idk op, probably the dao de ching and zhuang zhi. zen fles, zen bones.

Ask yourself this "bloomers". if your blooming or you want to bloom, why the fuck are you on Yea Forums?

I have this chart

Attached: Bloomer.jpg (1724x3701, 1.48M)

>Arch-splitter, ameri-chauvinist and first worldist completely deluded about human nature. Why bother, just another stupid idealist.
>Arch-splitter
so maybe I'm just dense or am unclear of what this is in direct reference to, but what is this supposed to mean?
>ameri-chauvinist
he was just as critical of america as he was of everywhere else, he just wasn't some kind of fuckin third worldist who thought america and the west in general were pure evil and everywhere else was great and pure. He had actual nuance or his time and looked at both sides of the picture,and typically that concluded with him saying both sides are shit but then would look at his current position (which was in america) and said okay but what are some good bits that we can use from this. Purely pragmatic.
>first worldist completely deluded about human nature
What's wrong with focusing on the first world when you live in the first world? How the fuck are revolutionaries supposed to rise up or even attempt to build dual power in a first world country if they don't look at it through a first worldist lens? Just because you focus on the first world doesn't mean you neglect the third world or even that those ideas can't be utilized in the third world, I mean look at fuckin Ocalan for christ's sake and how he expertly used Bookchin's theories and philosophies to develop democratic confederalism for use in the middle east. And what exactly is wrong with his views on human nature? If anyone is close to deducing what human nature entailed it was fucking bookchin.
>just another stupid idealist.
And this makes me think you haven't even read him because he's very staunchly a materialist. That was probably one of my main critiques of him because he utterly rejected any kind of spirituality/religion/idealism as being useful in any way. His views were always based on the inherently material and directly observable, which came from his heavily marxist background.

And reading everything else in your post it seems like your just some depressive ass doomer. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but jesus don't act like you're better than others or see reality for what it "really" is just because you're a fucking downer.

Attached: D1TZF4cXgAARu-s.jpg (658x926, 100K)

ITT: 76 genders, the Yea Forums edition

Attached: D1vcw0KWkAEUXMC.jpg (1200x1139, 148K)

cool pic.

He stated exclusively that he thought the traditions of the american revolution are valuable and worthwhile and should be built on and that he rejects the notion that America needs to be destroyed in order for any kind of improvement to be made. Modern marxists who are consistent will tell you that it can't be salvaged as it represents the theft of the native peoples land. Thinking you can maintain american traditions of democracy is flatly idealist imo. He just seems to completely ignore that people have way more to lose than their chains in the 1st world.

He literally split with every organisation he was a part of and created his own sect and ideology.

Also he seems to have believed in free will. This is a shit interpretation of Marx-Engels imo. Thats what ultimately makes him and idealist and a liberal, even though he so badly wanted not to be.

first worldist in the sense that he thought the first world was revolutionary. its not.

in short he believed in human nature, spooky shit. a real materialist acknowledges this is bullshit.

>He stated exclusively
I would hold the exclusivity to be contentious since he was very happy to point to any instances of left libertarian/proto left libertarian societies that exist today and throughout history as being examples that we should look upon and learn from, and highlighting the rich tradition of how these societies have existed in human history and can continue to exist into the future. He points to using the traditions of the american revolution purely for use if you were to attempt to build communalism in america, because the lessons from that are explicitly of more value here. It would be the same to say that the traditions of the french revolution would be more important in building communalism in france. Or how the Diggers would be more important for britain. That isn't to say they can't be cross polinated or examined in other contexts (which he does extensively in freedom of ecology) just that a tradition built up in a specific region is going to be more important and worth more consideration within that specific region as well.
>Modern marxists who are consistent will tell you that it can't be salvaged as it represents the theft of the native peoples land.
and plenty of modern marxists are idiots and decolonization theory is just ethnonationalism and segregation but in the hands of nonwhite people which is mostly fueled by white guilt. The end goal of it would be for all white people to move back to europe which is just unrealistic on top of being ridiculous. That isn't to say that we shouldn't take the natives into consideration, Bookchin even said we should strongly bring their traditions into the forefront and their cultures are extremely important and worthwhile, especially since they tended to be much more ecological. But we can't reverse the past and attempting to do so is an exercise in futility.
>He literally split with every organisation he was a part of and created his own sect and ideology.
Ah, I see, that makes sense now, thank you for elucidating what you meant. But you also have to take into consideration of when and why Bookchin did this. This was the 60's and 70's. All of your marxists were pretty much nothing but maoist third worldists, extremely authoritarian; all the anarchists were post leftists and life stylists, thinking that anything you did that wasn't individually for yourself would be authoritarian and their praxis consisted of maybe anarchy will just pop into existence if we hope for it enough. So basically both were a shitshow that weren't even worth associating yourself with as far as Bookchin was concerned, and ya can't really blame him when you consider those options. So yeah, he split and started his own sect and ideology, one that took the best aspects from both sides and coalesced them into something better. What's wrong with that? If you're presented with shit options should you just accept one of them? Or should you look for an egress like Bookchin did?

Attached: tumblr_pkd7lsAqRU1v2oy4eo1_1280.jpg (1280x689, 668K)

>Also he seems to have believed in free will.
What's wrong with that exactly? Maybe it's just because I've never been down with determinism myself, but I don't see what is bad about believing in free will. But also please do elaborate on how a belief in free will contradicts Marx-Engels? Not that that is necessarily a problem to me, it isn't like Marx-Engels is the word of god and they got everything exactly correct and right about everything (same for Bookchin, even though I am defending him he does have his problems.)
>makes him and idealist and a liberal
So simply believing in free will makes someone a liberal? Jesus fucking christ, listen to yourself.

Attached: DxtcorpXQAAtZq6.jpg (1463x2048, 695K)

>e split and started his own sect and ideology, one that took the best aspects from both sides and coalesced them into something better. What's wrong with that?
Its exactly what you'd expect from a liberal. The assertion of the primacy of their own world view. I can't believe you acolyting so hard. Its the traditional contradiction of anarchism i guess.

Really, the crux of why he is wrong is people in 1st world countries benefit from capitalism. They are petty bourgeois and thus cannot be revolutionary.

What does he have to say about the notion of the labor aristocracy?

>not being a genderfluid bloomer

>What's wrong with that exactly?
Its false. Why would everything else in phenomenal reality be determined and we not be so? Its a delusion pumped into the species to make them afraid of sinning and going to hell. Its bad because it makes you think you can have more influence that "you" can.
> believing in free will makes someone a liberal

generally that is the most basic element common to all of them in my experience.

well if this is spenglers opinion, then it must be truth, i mean he fucking wrote books n stuff.

>Its exactly what you'd expect from a liberal.
If that's the case then any sort of ideology that exists today would be liberal because they've all evolved and changed out of their roots. I mean hell you were mentioning the modern marxists in your last post and how they are all about decolonization theory now, which would be even more liberal with its huge focus on cultural equality, justice, and reparations. But even though I disagree with decolonization theory to even try and say it's liberal would be laughable. So to describe something like Bookchin's communalism as being liberal is even more ridiculous.
>The assertion of the primacy of their own world view.
Every single ideology does this, so unless you're critiquing ideologies as a whole this statement is pointless.
>people in 1st world countries benefit from capitalism.
You are correct here, and I do agree that Bookchin did not say enough on this topic. It is my own belief that for communalism (or really any leftist project) to be achievable anywhere in the near future there will need to be a hit to the standard luxury standard of living that currently exists. And that will be hard and difficult for people to deal, absolutely. I won't really get into that though because then that would be getting off topic with our thoughts and opinions on Bookchin.
>They are petty bourgeois and thus cannot be revolutionary.
The vast majority of americans are either lumpen or apart of a class that is neither worker or petty bourgeois (your general service workers and the like) so your statement is just false. But I mean even hell Engels himself proved that just because you're petty bourgeois doesn't mean you can't be a revolutionary, it's just unlikely. But this also completely ignores that Bookchin abandoned the notion of a workers revolution in america and instead placed his examination upon the citizen which is a much more modern and holistic "class" to use as a lens for revolutionary potential in our modern age. So I guess in a roundabout way you are correct that yes, a workers revolution has no chance of happening, and Bookchin would agree with you. But if you had read him you would know he already addressed this plenty. The Next Revolution is a pretty short and easy read friend, why not give it a shot instead of making baseless accusations or basing your points on faulty information.

Attached: D1TYgxDX4AI7MNL.png (450x639, 359K)