How do I philosophymax?

[Deleted member 283]

I'm feeling very enlightened currently

 

[CupOfCoffee]

Is love real?

 

[Dude420]

You psychology max because philosophy teaching is outdated/partially unscientifically based and you follow the footsteps of Dude420 GigaIQ development
https://looksmax.org/threads/anyone-is-into-psychological-self-developmentmaxing.1680/

 

[SHARK]

Is love real?

Only if you’re Chad

 

[CupOfCoffee]

Only if you’re Chad

In my thinking, love is supposed to be a selfless, egoless thing. The fact that some people receive "love" while others don't inherently renders it not love. It's lust, virtue signalling, gaining social points etc.

Imo, love exists outside the human capacity and experience, so whenever somebody says they "love" another person, I usually hear "I possess that person in some way and I'm using this mirage of selflessness to further raise myself up."

But, once you tell people these things you get called a psychopath and they shame you for not mindlessly aggreeing with their shallow perception and lack of actual thinking.

 

[Deleted member 656]

Is love real?

In my thinking, love is supposed to be a selfless, egoless thing. The fact that some people receive "love" while others don't inherently renders it not love. It's lust, virtue signalling, gaining social points etc.

Imo, love exists outside the human capacity and experience, so whenever somebody says they "love" another person, I usually hear "I possess that person in some way and I'm using this mirage of selflessness to further raise myself up."

But, once you tell people these things you get called a psychopath and they shame you for not mindlessly aggreeing with their shallow perception and lack of actual thinking.

To me, love is real so long as you believe it to be real. If you genuinely feel it to be real, even if you can't rationally justify the feeling, it's real to you, and that's just about all that matters.

And what is the alternative? I can't conceive of anything so bleak. Perhaps it's more noble to take that leap of faith and believe in the seemingly impossible. Better to suffer in pursuit of a worthy ideal than ldar or accept that the spiritual pinnacle of life is a myth.

Only if you’re Chad

Perhaps you're right, and should take what I say lightly given I'm ascending to 7+.

 

[UndercovrNormie]

"Hey Descartes, do you want to out later?"

"I think not" he replies

and then disappears

 

[CupOfCoffee]

If you genuinely feel it to be real, even if you can't rationally justify the feeling

I think that's where the difference lies between people like me vs normies. I like to rationally justify things and I don't generally trust my own feelings. But I know what you mean, the purely rationalistic view of things is very bleak. Jordan Peterson is not wrong, there seems to be no alternative than to live "nobly" and take leaps of faith to give it all potential meaning. And perhaps the acknowledgement that there's things we don't know and that there might legitimately be some meaning that we can't conceive, might help to keep a person trying. Instead of LDARing 24/7.

But for those who are predestined to be failures in all aspects of life, what can be expected from them except depression, lack of motivation, withdrawal, suicide etc.?? Realistically why should they feel anything else? I'm talking men under 5'2, anyone with debilitating disability, conjoined twins, IQ under 70, lightspeed ugly face, born into poverty, autoimmune illness with no cures, victims of family murder, Asian men (kek). It's easy for someone who has it relatively easy to be positive, productive, warm-hearted. But once you realize how bad others have it, and how vulnerable people are, even a rich guy with a robust life can start feeling like shit. Or maybe I'm too sensitive and take suffering too seriously.

 

[Deleted member 656]

I think that's where the difference lies between people like me vs normies. I like to rationally justify things and I don't generally trust my own feelings. But I know what you mean, the purely rationalistic view of things is very bleak. Jordan Peterson is not wrong, there seems to be no alternative than to live "nobly" and take leaps of faith to give it all potential meaning. And perhaps the acknowledgement that there's things we don't know and that there might legitimately be some meaning that we can't conceive, might help to keep a person trying. Instead of LDARing 24/7.

But for those who are predestined to be failures in all aspects of life, what can be expected from them except depression, lack of motivation, withdrawal, suicide etc.?? Realistically why should they feel anything else? I'm talking men under 5'2, anyone with debilitating disability, conjoined twins, IQ under 70, lightspeed ugly face, born into poverty, autoimmune illness with no cures, victims of family murder, Asian men (kek). It's easy for someone who has it relatively easy to be positive, productive, warm-hearted. But once you realize how bad others have it, and how vulnerable people are, even a rich guy with a robust life can start feeling like shit. Or maybe I'm too sensitive and take suffering too seriously.

Success and failure aren't relative to that of others unless you make them so, and you alone determine the realms in which you look to extract meaning.

 

[Fat cunt]

I'm feeling very enlightened currently

Pm me i can send you some woke vids

 

[bobs_pls]

Is love real?

https://therationalmale.com/2011/12/27/women-in-love/

 

[Dude420]

Love is the release of pleasurable hormones in the brain such as oxytocin that promotes pair-bounding.

 

[HorseFace]

Philosophymaxing

As the most intelligent person on this forum im happy to announce my mental enlighenment ascension program. Starting at $10 000 per month.

 

[Autist]

Do it because you have genuine interest and not because you want to impress some normalfags with your "intellect"at a party. Learning how to juggle is more of a max

 

[BLEG PERSON]

I'm feeling very enlightened currently

Don't worry it will pass and you'll be dwelling in your lowest desires. Contemplate the idea of taking psychedelics to experience ego death. If you have enough ego deaths you will become enlightened,
P.s it's spooky af and you'll question your existence until you connect with source consciousness

 

[bobs_pls]

Don't worry it will pass and you'll be dwelling in your lowest desires. Contemplate the idea of taking psychedelics to experience ego death. If you have enough ego deaths you will become enlightened,
P.s it's spooky af and you'll question your existence until you connect with source consciousness

 

[BLEG PERSON]

View attachment 16008

Did you expect me to misquote Nietzsche instead?

 

[mojopin]

You psychology max because philosophy teaching is outdated/partially unscientifically based and you follow the footsteps of Dude420 GigaIQ development
https://looksmax.org/threads/anyone-is-into-psychological-self-developmentmaxing.1680/

You don't think the two go hand in hand?

 

[bobs_pls]

Did you expect me to misquote Nietzsche instead?

I expected nothing

 

[Dude420]

You don't think the two go hand in hand?

No, because you come to the realization that philosophy is mostly trash when you have a deep modern understanding of human nature. Anything that has been written before like 1960s (which consist of most of the forefront philosophy literature) and is speaking of the human mind is relative garbage because they had such a limited and flawed basic understanding of the human mind to work with. I am not saying those philosophers weren't super smart people but it is hard to solve a large and complex puzzle when you lack pieces and the ones you do have possess manufacturer defects.

Philosophy is nearly dead now because science can almost answer every question (at least broad answers). There isn't much scientifically empty void to bridge anymore in our understanding of life.

 

[mojopin]

No, because you come to the realization that philosophy is mostly trash when you have a deep modern understanding of human nature. Anything that has been written before like 1960s (which consist of most of the forefront philosophy literature) and is speaking of the human mind is relative garbage because they had such a limited and flawed basic understanding of the human mind to work with. I am not saying those philosophers weren't super smart people but it is hard to solve a large and complex puzzle when you lack pieces and the ones you do have possess manufacturer defects.

Philosophy is nearly dead now because science can almost answer every question. There isn't much totally empty void to bridge anymore in our understanding of life.

As much as I agree that most ideas you read are ludicrous upon reflection, I find reading philosophy quite like reading great works of literature in that it allows you to reflect greater upon a way of life in a world far from our own, which isn't quite grasped the same way in psychology. I have the same attitude when reading Freud in that many of the ideas are disproven or absurd and yet it's still important to look into in order to understand his world, no? Philosophy IS almost completely dead, and the world has never been so ideologically torn so it's a no brainer that we need some form of philosophy incorporated in the modern world.

Is there anything you recommend reading btw?

 

[Dude420]

As much as I agree that most ideas you read are ludicrous upon reflection, I find reading philosophy quite like reading great works of literature in that it allows you to reflect greater upon a way of life in a world far from our own, which isn't quite grasped the same way in psychology. I have the same attitude when reading Freud in that many of the ideas are disproven or absurd and yet it's still important to look into in order to understand his world, no? Philosophy IS almost completely dead, and the world has never been so ideologically torn so it's a no brainer that we need some form of philosophy incorporated in the modern world.

Is there anything you recommend reading btw?

Reading great literature including philosophy is cope to me for people wanting to feel like that are doing something productive, I mean it certainly has some value, especially in the entertainment side of things if it suits your curiosity, but it is very limited compared to other options available to you if you are desirous of expanding your field of knowledge.

Most of the time I see Freud brought up when reading recent psychology papers/books is to point out how is understanding was flawed or wrong. Reading Freud is great to understand the origin and history of the psychology as a science but you won't get much in terms of understanding of the human mind, you have a high risk to be misled by a lot of erroneous stuff if you aren't aware before reading him how flawed is understanding of human nature was. But like I pointed out, he is a super brilliant man since even though his understanding is heavily flawed it got general parcels of truths right that the general population at that time was totally oblivious of. For example, the term "unconscious" was an unfamiliar term at the time. The super-ego isn't a term that is used anymore but the general idea behind our instincts being in perpetual conflicts with cultural conditioning is mostly accurate in abstraction. Those ideas are better understood now, with theories using an evolutionary/neuroscience framework and empirical support. But he was mistaken on several other ideas, notably his perception of sexuality was a mess, he brought forward the idea of the Oedipal complex that has no empirical based scientific support, he thought women were penis envious all their life, etc. All in all, you are much better off reading the most recent edition of David Buss evolutionary book than reading Freud if you want to expand your knowledge on the human mind.

"Philosophy IS almost completely dead, and the world has never been so ideologically torn so it's a no brainer that we need some form of philosophy incorporated in the modern world."
That is an interesting thought, I don't know how much factual validity it exactly has, but if I were to take it as is, I would say that it has more to do with the disparity in scientific understanding in the population than scientific limitations themselves and also, the increase in complexity of the problems we are facing as our society is distancing itself from our adapted primitive way of living is probably conducive to the population being ideologically torn.

Science has so much to offer now in terms of empirical data and robust theories, if you want to do philosophy properly you have to mostly use a great deal of our scientific understanding of the world, philosophy lost his meaning to me. You can't simply fabricate some type of understanding of the world through your simple observation of the world as ancient philosophers used to do. You are doing science or you have your personal bias opinion which is necessarily flawed pretty much.

Most useful read in the understanding of human nature, I would recommend Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, the Handbooks that goes more in-depth if you are really motivated, but it is over 1200 pages long total.

 

[Deleted member 795]

you wanna do what?

 

[mojopin]

Reading great literature including philosophy is cope to me for people wanting to feel like that are doing something productive, I mean it certainly has some value, especially in the entertainment side of things if it suits your curiosity, but it is very limited compared to other options available to you if you are desirous of expanding your field of knowledge.

Most of the time I see Freud brought up when reading recent psychology papers/books is to point out how is understanding was flawed or wrong. Reading Freud is great to understand the origin and history of the psychology as a science but you won't get much in terms of understanding of the human mind, you have a high risk to be misled by a lot of erroneous stuff if you aren't aware before reading him how flawed is understanding of human nature was. But like I pointed out, he is a super brilliant man since even though his understanding is heavily flawed it got general parcels of truths right that the general population at that time was totally oblivious of. For example, the term "unconscious" was an unfamiliar term at the time. The super-ego isn't a term that is used anymore but the general idea behind our instincts being in perpetual conflicts with cultural conditioning is mostly accurate in abstraction. Those ideas are better understood now, with theories using an evolutionary/neuroscience framework and empirical support. But he was mistaken on several other ideas, notably his perception of sexuality was a mess, he brought forward the idea of the Oedipal complex that has no empirical based scientific support, he thought women were penis envious all their life, etc. All in all, you are much better off reading the most recent edition of David Buss evolutionary book than reading Freud if you want to expand your knowledge on the human mind.

"Philosophy IS almost completely dead, and the world has never been so ideologically torn so it's a no brainer that we need some form of philosophy incorporated in the modern world."
That is an interesting thought, I don't know how much factual validity it exactly has, but if I were to take it as is, I would say that it has more to do with the disparity in scientific understanding in the population than scientific limitations themselves and also, the increase in complexity of the problems we are facing as our society is distancing itself from our adapted primitive way of living is probably conducive to the population being ideologically torn.

Science has so much to offer now in terms of empirical data and robust theories, if you are want to do philosophy properly you have to mostly use a great deal of our scientific understanding of the world, philosophy lost his meaning to me. You can't simply fabricate some type of understanding of the world through your simple observation of the world as ancient philosophers used to do. You are doing science or you have your personal bias opinion which is necessarily flawed pretty much.

Most useful read in the understanding of human nature, I would recommend Evolutionary Psychology: The New Science of the Mind, the Handbooks that goes more in-depth if you are really motivated, but it is over 1200 pages long total.

Cheers for the in-depth response. A lot of valid points made. I’ll check out those books when I get time for sure

 

[CupOfCoffee]

You can't simply fabricate some type of understanding of the world through your simple observation of the world as ancient philosophers used to do.

You can, but it has to be your own individual opinion, and experts that get deep into metaphysical woowoo (when they barely understand physics) should make it clear that their belief isn't holy grail enlightenment.

 

[Nibba]

I'm feeling very enlightened currently

Spotify actually has some philosophy courses that you can listen to on long car rides. And they're also pretty interesting historically if you're into that

 

[Dude420]

You can, but it has to be your own individual opinion, and experts that get deep into metaphysical woowoo (when they barely understand physics) should make it clear that their belief isn't holy grail enlightenment.

Yeah, I should have said: You can't simply fabricate some type of understanding of the world through your simple observation of the world as ancient philosophers used to do and call it philosophy since philosophy now requires a solid scientific foundation to stay relevant and thought-provoking. If you don't use any scientific basis you enter the realm of spirituality and metaphysical woowoo BS (as you are accurately suggesting).

 

[RedPilledStemcel]

It's dumb to outright dismiss philosophy because it's not evidence based as a lot of philosophy (that isn't evidence based) is simply just logic.

 

[DarknLost]

Read 100 books

 

[Nibba]

Yeah, I should have said: You can't simply fabricate some type of understanding of the world through your simple observation of the world as ancient philosophers used to do and call it philosophy since philosophy now requires a solid scientific foundation to stay relevant and thought-provoking. If you don't use any scientific basis you enter the realm of spirituality and metaphysical woowoo BS (as you are accurately suggesting).

A lot of the early philosophers in Greece had some sort of right ideas but obviously now science has proven most if not all of their theories wrong. So I agree philosophy is only one side of the coin you need a strong understanding of science. You can only know half of the story with introspection you need to actually interact with the world on a scientific basis in order to get the other half and even then the full truth isn't really explainable fully sometimes

 

[Dude420]

It's dumb to outright dismiss philosophy because it's not evidence based as a lot of philosophy (that isn't evidence based) is simply just logic.

Other than the presentation logic concepts such as logical fallacies, I don't think there is anything in philosophy that is simply just logic. Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Descartes, Kant, you would release what they wrote today for the first time about human existence, it would receive 0 attention, if it would, it would be to laugh how scientifically ill-informed you are.