What is the objectively best thing that you can do now to become the best of yourself?I think its probably to study philosophy math and art.
>>1210559
What is the best of yourself? I think I'm meant to be a clown.
>>1210559
>best of yourself?
What the fuck.
>>1210568
>>1210569
Whats so hard to get about it?Its obviously that these 3 subjects,actually 4 with science are the most important things that we should focus on as they help us with logic,abstract thinking and creativity.Nothing else matter at least that's my opinion and I doubt someone can even refute it anyway.
>>1210591
In that case, I suggest to study psychology so you'll be aware of cognitive biases. I take the position that I will always be in some way biased. Thus a clown.
I'm unsure but would think of abstract thinking as something that comes natural, but perhaps a study in math would do wonders for that.
As for creativity, I am doubtful that studying art will help with that. Rather I suggest you to look into diverse subjects, so your brain hopefully starts to connect supposedly unrelated stuff into something novel.
>>1211199
I don't think you consider how diverse art is.
Applied math. Replace art with psychology or sociology.
Physics, philosophy, psychology, history, biology etc.
Basically, your question is pointless, because it implies an arbitrary ranking of selves and disciplines. Study the things you are interested in, the things you can devote youself to and not whatever makes you feel superior to others due to an imaginary scale.
>>1213854
>imaginary scale
like i said already its objectively better to devout your life on math/philosophy/art/science than simply on history.
>>1214013
How is it "objectively" better? Simply repeating that does not make it any more true.
>>1214017
>that we should focus on as they help us with logic,abstract thinking and creativity.
I'm not saying that history by itself is bad but we should focus more on the subjects I listed.
>>1214021
How are "logic,abstract thinking and creativity" objectively better? Why should "we" focus more on the fields of which you believe they would cultivate those things (which isn't even necessarily true)?
>>1214036
>How are "logic,abstract thinking and creativity" objectively better?
K E K
E
K
True we should focus on history or whatever shit.No surprise the chinks will oblidarete the west.
>>1214043
I asked you to support your position with proper reasoning and you responded in memes. For someone valueing "logic,abstract thinking and creativity" you seem to heavily lack all of the aforementioned.
You probably shouldn't go into academics at all as you seem to be a bit of a dullard. But do whatever makes you happy.
>>1214054
You asked me why we should focus on logic abstract thinking and creativity which is a question that its not worth to answer.
Develop infallible self-control
It is the driving force behind every single thing you will ever do
>>1214064
Why and how?Please elaborate.
>>1214060
Because you cannot answer it.
If you assume that very basic questions such as that are "not worth answering" you will not be happy with philosophy. You will be one of the idiots that gets flustered when people question their very perception of reality. Trust me, it is not for you.
You might feel more at home in a STEM field. I studied Physics and met many people just like you there.
>>1214064
considering that you're on 4chan, you clearly haven't developed this ability. good luck tho
>>1214078
What is better alternative?If its not for logic,abstract thinking and creativity what is our purpose?I really dont get you.What would you do without them?No surprise that history revisionism with agenda and post modernism are so big.Because nobody values the things I listed as most important.
>>1214089
We have no objective purpose.
Also please do not attribute a position to me that I do not hold, I never said "logic,abstract thinking and creativity" are useless or that I do not value them, they are very important to me. I studied Physics and will soon begin my study of Philosophy, both fields that draw heavily on all three of those.
This does however not mean they are objectively better in any sense. I only subjectively value these qualities, as you at least say you do as well.
Your main error seems to be that you wish to draw some kind of sense of superiority from studying in fields that you think foster those properties.
If you can simply accept that you wish to improve your own level of being able to think logically, abstractly and creatively then I would tell you that you can do this in many disciplines and that the best one is heavily dependant on what you can personally devote yourself to.
For me these would be: Physics, Information Processing, Biology, Psychology and Philosophy and by extension Mathematics because it permeates all of those fields.
>>1214124
You talk about how you value them yet you clearly say that there is no objective purpose.Do you have absolute truth?Do you think anything else than truth is valuable?How would you achieve truth without these values?In a way yes you can say that its subjective because we don't have absolute truth but to find the absolute truth we need them and so it ends with them being objective at least FOR NOW.
>>1210559
I like those three too anon, but I also would like to get a high paying job and a beautiful gf/wife, and philosophy and art aren't going to help me with that. So I guess I'll have to postpone doing the things that I like to when I get old. Fuck this gay earth.
>>1214143
Thruth may be valuable to me but again:
it is not objectively so.
I am saying there is not "absolute truth" in the way that there would be some kind of overarching purpose to our existence. The "absolute truth" is that we are single self-replecating automatons that have been bestowed with the power to see and wonder about the ultimate futilitiy of our own existence.
I can understand your need to find more than that and you are free to do try and, who knows, even succeed, but it does not make you OBJECTIVELY better or more correct than anybody else.
And if you wish to say that truth has innate value then you have to find arguments to support that that go beyond "because I feel like it is" or "don't you feel like it is?" because those are both heavily subjective.
>>1214145
That sounds like a sad existence, friend. My condolences.
>>1214173
Once again you talk like you know EXACTLY how things work which has extremely low chance.From the beginning of our existence people thought that they know the absolute truth and were always 100% sure like you just to end with every new generation disproving the previous one.No Idea how a logic backed scientist statement is the same a someone who thinks that he is right but can't back it up or its something obvious.As for the truth I never said ""because I feel like it is" or "don't you feel like it is?"".I simply said that truth is the only thing that matters and that we should strive for it since it only hurts us in the long term if we don't follow it.
>>1214226
You are misrepresenting my point yet again as well as not making a coherent one yourself. I will concede that me saying
"The "absolute truth" is that we are single self-replecating automatons that have been bestowed with the power to see and wonder about the ultimate futilitiy of our own existence."
could be interpreted as me claiming to have some kind of higher insight but the quotation marks around "absolute truth" were meant to indicate that I was not claiming to truly know an absolute.
By "simply saying that truth is the only thing that matters" you are arguing from a purely subjective point of view. Why would it only hurt us if we don't follow your dogma of "truth is the only valuable thing"? You are spouting dogmas left and right without any basis. Stop just repeating yourself and start asking yourself why truth should have any value at all. My "guess" is that your position on truth is purely axiomatic, which honestly is inevitable, and can therefor not be considered an objective truth.
Did you just finish highschool and are now looking for a path in life to follow?
Objective truth makes me laugh tho, psychology clearly says we cannot process it
It does seem you can be more 'rational' when it comes to numbers if you are into math
>>1214255
OP is different. He has no cognitive biases :^)
>>1214246
I never said that you claimed to know absolute truth.I said that your "higher insight" about "futility" is wrong because the truth itself would give us a purpose.How is that subjective?How can you escape the truth?Yes you can believe and do whatever you want but youre still dictated by it unconciously.
>>1210559
Juggle knives
>>1214270
You simply dogmatically presupposing that there is a truth is subjective. Faced with no arguments or evidence that there is an objective truth it is simply impossible to come to the objective conclusion that there is one.
You have still not offered any arguments for an objective truth, by the way. You seem to be arguing a kind of metaphysical truth, which many Philosophers would discard outright because it is highly debated wether arguing metaphysics is even productive in the least.
Anyway, it seems as if you have already made your decisions and will not budge from them so best of luck with finding objective truth. I will be anxiously awaiting your big philosophical works.
>>1214279
Well sure you can strive for it, I do that too. But never fall for the fallacy that what you think will ever be fully objective, rational and logical
>>1214279
>misrepresenting something some has said this badly
>>1214282
>You will never be absolutely perfect so there's no point improving yourself to any degree
Your logic
>>1216457
I didn't say that... You can possible be more objective, rational and logical but never fully
You don't have to be such a dick about it, this is the second time you put what I said out of context
>>1216910
How do you know that you cant never be fully.You're just like the other guy talking about subjectivity like it matters.
You and the other guy just say
>you can't know nuffin dude subjectivity lmao all people are the same senpai
>>1219488
Start reading about the findings of Daniel Kahneman and Amos Nathan Tversky. Cognitive science says we are limited in objectivity, I'm not pulling that shit out of me arse, aye?
>>1219668
>both are jews
>implying that he is not talking only about the goy
>oy vey all the gentiles are limited unlike us
>>1216910
>but never fully
If anything that's all the more reason to always strive towards being more logical and rational.
