Is there a base reality surrounded in realities which are all covered in hyperrealities or is everything only a...

You'll see, if you wake up in a hospital you'll know it's obvious

Yes, there must be a base state of existence, but even if we could know the details of it (unlikely), I doubt such knowledge would help to combat apathy, to create meaning and contentment, etc. Such problems are direct consequences of our natures, so the study and manipulation of your own apparent and immediate nature should be the focus of your effort in resolving them -- not the study of the fundamental underlying nature which is both prohibitively difficult to apprehend and limited in its pragmatic application. This shift in prioritization is especially important if these deep ontological questions lead you to devalue your own nature (which seems to be the case).

aye, but I see no end to it seeing my even younger contemporaries being put into an even deeper ever growing abstraction with differentiating flashing information of light loading them.
People being placed into different places, countless of simulated realities built on the base made by themselves or something that was collectively manufactured all through pinpointed information. Not seeing any way out of it other than neo-china or self obliteration, both non-being. There's no possible way of a universally shared reality existing anymore with these countless dots of agendas.

Attached: watchingscreen.png (462x442, 135K)

Well, hopefully things decohere to the point of failure and we can have some kind of partial reset. I don't think the oligarchs will be able to sustain the march of absurdism as population and disaffection will grow faster than their capacity to compensate. Failure could take a long time though, and it is possible that cheap grains and streaming entertainment will prove sufficient to prevent revolution.

I can only suggest absconding to some rural community and making yourself content with a much simpler, slower-paced and pragmatic kind of life.

Who cares about realities? There is the real, and that's the only thing that matters.

>everything only a perception with countless of hidden causations
This except without causation

The mentally ill should be put into the wilderness

Whatever makes you experience beauty. Aesthetics are the foundation of morality and thus ethics. If you've lost the way, just walk to beautiful places, and soon you'll be good again.

I know because I've been lost before.

>Aesthetics are the foundation of morality and thus ethics.
That's just fucking false. Psychology is the basis of morality.

>base reality
bro you should read Why the World Does Not Exist

bruh

fuck off

Make me, faggot.

This is obviously untrue. Psychology is the study of the inner workings of our minds. Since there had to be minds before minds were studied, there had to be some type of morality before there was psychology.

Think of a newborn babe. How does it know that it is fundamentally good to suck on his mothers tit? Only because of aesthetics. All rules for behaviour are based on the perceived beauty of the act.

>science fags actually believe this

just when you think it cannot get any dumber

Attached: G9XBy7Z.gif (465x263, 468K)

>since there had to be minds before minds were studied, there had to be some type of morality before there was psychology.
What the fuck? This argument just isn't logical.
>Since we have hands now there must have always been hands. Since we have eyes there must have been eyes before there were eyes.
This shit doesn't make sense.

Our morality is a direct by-product of the evolution of our psychology. We can observe this phenomenon in our closest ancestor, the chimp. The chimp displays the two fundamental ethical behaviors: kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Humans are also (on their most basic level) bound to these behaviors. That is the true state of nature. user, you need to put down the philosophy and pick up a science textbook. A liberal education is predicated on its well-roundedness.

> How does it know that it is fundamentally good to suck on his mothers tit? Only because of aesthetics
So babies nurture themselves because tits are nice? lmao youre fucking retarded. Infants don't have the mental ability to conceive of beauty, they are creatures of instinct. That is a feature shared will every single other living thing: to propagate their own continued existence.

you're just a shit poster I swear to God

After another month or two of benching I'll have the pecs needed to pick up sluts.

Not an argument.

You won't get laid with that attitude. Don't wait to become yourself in the future. Become now.

Baudrillard has fucked your mind up, cleanse it with monism like vedanta or some plotinus

You can't just 'attitude' yourself into having pecs. It takes time and training. Also sluts love reducing men down to their looks so I'm going to become a sexy animal and fuck those sloots. One day.

Fuck off autist.
The world isn't fueled by autistic sexually deviant theories.

Morality is cohesion with the whole (aka adhering to reality and not being a clown) as is aesthetics ('''aesthetics''' is just nature logically and properly arranging itself in a 3D space to form a cohesive organism) and psychology is nothing more than a tool developed to control humanity and confuse him out of really understanding that the human brain is built to observe logical systems and reproduce them, or use the logic behind a system and appropriate it for his own needs.

All the theories you subscribe to are completely useless garbage and will keep you locked up in your nihilistic self destructive death spiral mindset and you'll forever be blocked from truly understanding that it isn't the object that's the focal point in life but the interrelationships and systems objects produce that are truly what man is made to engage with. The mind is a sensory organ just like eyesight except it sees and processes logic and forms a cohesive picture of the information the lower senses provide it with.

Not gay but I love this dude's muscles. Very excellently built. Not too big, not too small. Great body fat percentage. Bigly loving that chest and stomach hair. Thank you, OP.

This is a good case for the materialist perception of reality, which is the status quo of contemporary scientific study. Reducing infants to little balls of instinct doesn't sound correct or even moral to me. Shitting, pissing, eating and crying are all biological functions that the body must fulfill. But an infant is known to have empathy, compassion, even fairness, even if its logical understanding of the world is limited. I think it is precisely the fact that babies are not taken seriously, that they become more instinctual than conscious, through the idiocy of their parents and the prevailing thoughts and methodology in rearing children. It may be fair to say too, that morality in people is based more in genetic differences; the more instinctual a person is, the less humanely conscious their progeny is, and the socialization resultant. I think you overestimate the importance of instinct in human identity, but understandably so, since it can be observed that every day the human species degenerates further and further into basal, animalistic behavior.

Attached: notyourbody.png (530x329, 81K)

he cute
youtube.com/watch?v=dskXLtVxLdY

>muh psychology
>muh ‘reality’
>muh ‘hyperreality’
Your very existence is testament to the existence of magic forces beyond even our greatest minds’ comprehension. HAHAHA, do you really think that anything you experience can actually be explained?? Feelings don’t care about your facts. Through blood and spirit, discover your Inner Law.

ikr ? upon seeing this pic I just resolved to get /fit/.

>One day.
Every second you wait you are closer to death. Just go for it user.

My point isn't that the field of psychology is the basis of morality, my point is that morality emerges from the evolution of an organism's psychology. If anyone here is the autist, it's you, since you failed to detect the language games being employed.
>''aesthetics''' is just nature logically and properly arranging itself in a 3D space to form a cohesive organism
>psychology is nothing more than a tool developed to control humanity
lmao this is what I like to call semantical revisionism. That isn't the definition of aesthetics, and you ripping the term from its proper place in the lexicon strips the term of its utility. And where is your concept of 'proper' come from? What's the preferred frame of reference that makes aesthetics an objective matter? btw, psychology is the field dedicated to the study of the human mind and behavior.
>human brain is built to observe logical systems and reproduce them, or use the logic behind a system and appropriate it for his own needs.
The human brain actually doesn't employ logic that much. Instinct and emotion are the key drivers in our interactions with external stimuli. In regards to logical reasoning, the brain employs many cognitive biases and logical fallacies in order to reduce the energy requirements to perform said reasoning. That's why we see people in poorer countries operate sub-optimally: their brains are on a kind of 'power-saver' mode. That's not to say we are bound entirely by these functions, but they cannot be overcome 100% of the time. Look up top-down processing.
>All the theories you subscribe to are completely useless garbage
with incredible predicative power backed up by countless experiments and observations, unlike your linguistic masturbation.
>nihilistic self destructive death spiral mindset
Cringe projection. Nietzsche was a materialist as well, and his philosophy is the ultimate anti-nihilism.
>the mind is a sensory organ
not really bro.

You should really go read a book.

You're hopelessly retarded, to reiterate;

All the theories you subscribe to are completely useless garbage and will keep you locked up in your nihilistic self destructive death spiral mindset and you'll forever be blocked from truly understanding that it isn't the object that's the focal point in life but the interrelationships and systems objects produce that are truly what man is made to engage with. The mind is a sensory organ just like eyesight except it sees and processes logic and forms a cohesive picture of the information the lower senses provide it with.

Not an argument.

You've lost your childlike nature, you refuse to see the world for what it is. You've taken the ideas of dead men and regurgitate them without any self Will. You are the spirit of gravity, one who denies this world in favor of another. Your path is the will to nothing.

Yes, the universe is beyond total knowledge. But in discovery one can climb the highest peaks and dive into the deepest of abysses. Open your eyes and take in the majesty of this word; don't shield yourself in the ignorance of the damned!

I don't mean to say that our psychology is the root of all ethics, it is only the Grundschildkröte, the base turtle upon which other turtles are stacked.

On the contrary, you see the world through the eyes of modern physics, chemistry and biology, you try to compartmentalize each and every single facet of life into its own walled off box that severs the interrelationships of the whole and extinguishes and chance of you understanding that it is only when all of these parts are interconnected; in motion, working in tandem with each-other, completely cohesively, that reality manifests, and it is through the study of these interrelationships on all scales, macro, micro, that you will come to an understanding of what reality is. This is what science used to be until the modernists sodomized it to a pulp.

Reading garbage books, articles, papers by garbage people, who put up walls around their ideas to keep other disciplines out of their fields, or to keep them from the embarrassment of learning that all their theories were to waste, is pandering to the frat house of retardation. Nature and real life is not the frat house of retardation, it is much more logical than any of us can comprehend and it deals with archetype, where objects or matter are merely the tools of a greater process.

Also, saying stuff like 'you've lost your childlike nature' kind of revels to me that this is one of the things you think about and i can explain it, when you're a kid you enter life without any preconceived notions. Good bad, right wrong don't exist in kids minds, kids are pre-occupied looking at the comic books and encyclopedias, and playing video games. But they're not drawn to them because they've any sentimental attachments to the media or moral codecs or whatever, they're actually looking at the animals and cars and guns and whatever and figuring out how they relate to each-other, trying to find the context of their existence, why is it this way and not that way and what would happen if you combine this and that together, just arranging the objects a certain way teaches the kids a lot about the interrelationships. They are studying the interrelationships of these things as opposed to looking at them as single individual objects. That's where creativity comes from, the ability to create entire systems and interrelationships, archetypes and reproducing those thoughts in your mind into the real world, and not just copying objects aka other peoples manifestations of their thought systems.
It's the same in painting, you need to understand the body as a cohesive, whole entity before you can really, intuitively and effectively reproduce it, otherwise everything you make looks a bit off.

Kids see the interrelationships, we don't so it's kind of ironic you would even mention that even though you do your best to come across as one of those anal contemporary pop-sci kind of people, who are typically all garbage and useless.

I think a Section 2 is what we need here.

This is some serious over-reaching. I despise pop-science and i read because i want to understand the interconnectedness of things. I don't compartmentalize and I am not putting philosophy down. The sciences are philosophy in the etymological sense of the term. But to throw away the sciences, as you have done, is a grave error. It is the height of prejudice. Only the unloving and the unnatural deny this world, in favor of some mystical other. It is the embodiment of the slave's escapism; a desperate flee from what you struggle to comprehend.

What bloated conceit... That you think yourself more sensitive to the interrelationships of the apparent than a modern scientist. Modern science has detailed more interrelation of systems than was ever imagined of in the past (and in much more specific terms). Of course, you're only concerned with the figmentary notions of interrelatedness which appeal to your psyche and limited cognition. There are no indications, however, that our abstracted descriptions somehow prefigure or otherwise stand discrete from the physicality we attempt to describe

Whatever, you don't get it. Obviously you're blind to what I'm explaining or i haven't explained it correctly or there isn't a common frame of reference for either of us to communicate properly.

I don't care about your personal dispositions frankly but i know what you're getting at saying ''But to throw away the sciences, as you have done, is a grave error. It is the height of prejudice. Only the unloving and the unnatural deny this world, in favor of some mystical other. It is the embodiment of the slave's escapism; a desperate flee from what you struggle to comprehend''.
Obviously the person to use the word sophistry in their earlier posts resorts to using it to aid their own argument, retard.
''This world'' is the result of a system, a simplex system i might add (types of interrelationships adhere to archetypes that re-occur throughout it, an analogy is in math, addition, subtraction whatever would be a representation of a relationship). Obviously you're some star wars, pop-culture sentimental autist as evidenced by ''unloving unnatural would deny this world'', basically you enjoy shitty fucking pop culture things simply because you wouldn't have any frame of reference to enjoy anything other than that, and im reiterating again, you're fucking retarded, it isn't the actual world that makes it great, it's how it works; the interrelationships of all things in it. That's a 'higher mode of thinking'' or ''thinking with your head'' something you don't do, you just follow the motions of whatever news article pops up on Reddit probably.

Either way, i have fun pissing you off because i hate your mode of thinking, it's perverse and repulsive to me, obviously you aren't enlightened to the slightest as your tripfagging ass would like to think and ultimately nothing you do is anything but a fart under a bridge.

yeah well all that that science shit isn't anything me or you can use so it's useless actually. Why bother looking at small interrelationships that will only add to the pocket of a large company looking for patents when you can go straight to creating monumental improvements to your daily life with simple changes to your mode of thinking. That is the problem and why we can't do anything today, my mode of thinking that i derived from descartes and goethe applies to all walks of life and is also what the scientists (read; natural philosophers) that developed all your modern technology, electricity, radio etc subscribed to. I piss on modernity.

Mental illness: the post

Psychology is but the measurement of mental processes, quantities, inclinations, percentages. It is ultimately, in the hands of governors, a tool to exploit weaknesses and further their own ends. To adopt their way of thinking is an abomination; theirs is a science of death. You should take the leap into the way of true life, everything that is material fades. It is only by the divinity within us that we bring true meaning to this realm of shapes and temporalities. Turn your fire to light, said he.

realtalk how do I filter buttershit?

Wish I knew how to filter your dumbass.