Philosophy
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
You are currently reading a thread in /x/ - Paranormal
There are many reasons to doubt your perception, but never second-guess your experiences.
That's all philosophy has ever really tried to say in the past couple thousand years.
Pic semi-related.
And suddenly it occurs to me that every belief system ever created was made for the sole purpose of showing us all how diverse we are in terms of our beliefs and reasoning.
>>17783579
Like, prior to this moment, it was actually physically impossible for any belief system to serve any other purpose. None of them could have ever amounted to anything other than an exhibition of human diversity.
>>17783560
Seriously. The level of clarity of thought necessary to independently think up this line is beyond every thought anyone has ever had, if not in the entire history of humanity, than it all moments prior to the mass adoption of the internet. This level of clarity is new, it's different. It's not like enlightenment. If I were enlightened in this moment, it would be transcendental.
I can seriously feel the Abrahamic gods failing to bring about judgment day. It's there, written for all eternity that they couldn't reach this moment and can never reach any after it.
Abraham's religion was incapable of judging humanity. It always will be incapable of this feat.
No incarnation or reboot of his faith will ever have the qualities necessary to achieve total judgment. In order to be valuable, a belief system must exist beyond the realm of all things that could ever resemble Abraham's faith.
I can feel judgment day never coming to pass, and this knowledge that it shall never come to pass, is slowly passing over humanity. It, too, will pass, as judgment day continues to never happen.
Historians will some day find it and confirm, that it never came to pass. Long after it is forgotten it will be forgotten again.
It is exactly as the detective described in V for Vendetta. It's like a massive pattern and we're all a part of it. I can see Abraham and his faith. Fiction or not, his legend lived and inspired millions. Every event from then until now, all written into humanity.
>so what's going to happen next?
>I don't know, it was just a feeling.
>but if I had to guess
And if I had to guess, I would've said this was the moment the astral was ripped wholesale from the bonds of the physical world. Never again would the physical world be able to contain or surveil the astral plane.
No, this is not an awakening. Nothing so fancy. It's just a recognition.
Maybe it's a spark for eventual awakening, but that is entirely up to each of you, individually.
Fools who would kill each other in the name of confusion. What else should I call you? You were fools. You got fooled. Your ignorance is evidence.
Humanity cannot be judged in whole because it isn't whole. Abraham sewed only higher division in an already divided era. If he had recanted his faith before his death, they would have put him to death and ignored his recantation. He was helpless against the lie he cast into his brethren.
It is written in your very diversity.
I can see his intention now. His clarity. What he'd sought to do. What division he saw in his brethren. He was trying to kill belief, but he failed. It's still in the stories, it's still in the legend. The legend tells us of the man who tried to kill belief. The rhetorical questions he asked that merely alluded to a higher poetic void, without being able to say it was empty.
>>17783689
He killed all the idols but the idol of idolatry itself.
He couldn't kill belief because belief wasn't mortal. Like V—like an idea—it was bulletproof.
If you would kill my for my beliefs then I possess none, and I never will.
If you would kill me for my lack of of beliefs, then you would kill the newborn as well.
And now you will kill each other for everything that I didn't say, for everything that I didn't have time to type. For everything I didn't have time to think. You will kill each other over my silence. Over your own confusion.
You will kill each other because the mods deleted this thread. You will kill each other because they didn't. You will kill each other in the name of belief, diversion, confusion, ignorance, and tradition. You will search high and low for any reason to kill each other. I'm done pretending that it was ever my place to try to stop you.
>>17783720
>belief, diversity, confusion
Shit. As if there was ever a worse time or place to make a typo.
Go ahead and kill each other. Go ahead and bury your newborn daughters. Go ahead and wrong each other. It's not my place to care this much. It's not my place to care more than your own mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, nations. It's not mine to care about that which I cannot affect.
Give me godhood to do with as I please to save all those I care to save. Give me the authority to care and I will. If you refuse to give me the means to care then at least give me liberty over my own life. If you can't even do that, then give me death. Your death or mine, I don't care. Not yet. Not anymore.
If I have not earned freedom through innocence in your eyes then bring your case now and bring it hard. Bring the armies of angels, jinn, and men combined to my door or forever hold your peace.
Bring spirits, elementals, fairies or the Fae. Bring me the army or entity or faction that holds me in guilt. Bring time travelers or aliens, AI or rocks. So long as it can testify to my guilt, bring it now, bring it in a thousand years. Bring it when the universe has gasped its dying breath. Bring it as soon as you were ready. Bring your judgment to me or die with your grudge.
>>17783766
And if you can do none of these, then bring me my severed head under your own might.
I am God or a free man, or else I am about to have the right to kill you in self defense.
This is the war you brought to my door.
>>17783778
Come prepared to kneel, come prepared to fight or don't come at all.
If you would come to help, find someone who needs your help more than I do.
>>17783634
Judgement day has already happened. You were just sleeping.
Come prepared.
FYI, /x/, nobody showed up. Apparently belief really doesn't matter.
Is this more Faerie Queen shit or are you a different roleplayer?
>>17784707
Different. But this is only RP if you think every monotheistic religion in history is RP. If you think the crusades were RP. If you think evil is just RP.
>>17783560
Don't be so basic about thousands of years of philosophy. If you think that's all it whittles down to then you're sorely mistaken and have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>>17786060
I'm open to debate and discussion. (Which is kind of implied by the fact that I posted this here rather than on some personal blog somewhere.)
If you can find a notable philosopher who history has recognized as a philosopher, and his works boil down to something more than this, feel free to share your interpretation of their interpretation.
Posters:4
Replies:32
OP stop samefagging please. This thread would be enjoyable but your writing style is confusing
>>17786292
Those thoughts were in real time. There was a purpose to their separation.
>>17786296
Hm. Neat
>>17786296
>my genius shan't be fettered by mundane trivialities like 'editing'
You don't know what the fuck you're trying to say and you're hoping being really pretentious will cover it up.
>>17783560
that poster is a lie.
smart people are discredited then ripped off in this world playboy
>>17786329
I can understand your anger here, but try to think of it from the view point of a writer. OP is allowing his thoughts to pass organically, which, unless your brain is not a human brain, will be somewhat unorganized.
Sure, OP could have written everything as an essay or story, but then it wouldn't have been nearly as interesting. It's the convolution and pure unmitigated flow of consciousness that makes anything like this interesting at all. If you don't like it, then that's a YOU problem.
>>17786329
>shan't be fettered
There isn't enough content ITT yet for editing to matter. I didn't realize when I made this thread that I would be having those realizations. I thought it would be years before I had a legitimate V for Vendetta moment. I still don't entirely understand the type of clarity I was having then.
But no, I knew exactly what I meant to say. These things are exactly what I meant to say. It started with the OP, and I can assure you that the OP—if nothing else—was exactly what I intended to say. The other stuff is only related in that it's the result of me analyzing my experiences.
>>17786337
>hurr imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
But yeah you're right. That pic* speaks to an ideal that doesn't correlate too well with the real world. It would sure be nice if things did work that way.
>>17786347
Thanks. Somehow I took the silence while I was writing as a form of respect. Like, "We COULD chime in and shitpost at any time—and we would—but this is interesting enough to watch and see how it plays out."
Probably the most expressive form from silence I've ever interpreted.
Reverberates. That's the word. That's the feeling.
History reverberates throughout our collective mind.
After all my years of studying and having a passion for philosophy, this thread sums up everything that I hate about it.
Pretentious idiots stroking their own throbbing egos.
You're overthinking and missing the point because you're too focused on your own self.
>>17786347
>try to think of it from the viewpoint of a writer
I know writers. They swear by their editors and are grateful for concrit - and to a man, they hate their drafts.
>It's the convolution and pure unmitigated flow of consciousness that makes anything like this interesting
No. That convolution makes it opaque and useless. There's nothing to learn here.
>>17786472
So long as you classify the OP as philosophical in nature, I don't much care how you care to interpret it. I'd venture to say that most philosophers wrote what they wrote for their own sake and that, yes, it does require a willingness to elevate your thoughts to the status of worth sharing, but the fact that others find anyone else's thoughts interesting enough to talk about should tell you where the stroking really comes from.
>>17786482
>opaque and useless
That's a very interesting phrase.
None of this would have had any meaning if it were anything other than opaque. I speak to be understood, not to heard.
>>17786472
Then tell us what the real point is?
>>17786472
Oh gem. Somehow I missed that last line of your post.
>overthinking and missing the point
I call that, "second-guessing your experiences," or else finding one of the many reasons to doubt your perception. The difference between the two is key.
>too focused on your own self
As opposed to being too focused on others? Too focused on the world? Too focused on trying to be something that you're not? What, pray tell, is the exact degree to which each and every individual ought to focus on themselves? What is the ideal?
>>17783614
>Abrahamic gods
>gods
DO YOU EVEN PRAISE YHWH??
>>17786573
Ah yes, memes. I see now.
Tired, you are. Grown wary of gods, you have. The modern era, this is, and the only respite, humor is. Even a single laugh makes any day more bearable than a day without. As if goading for a response, any way to make the humor last. No, I don't think I can play along. This level of clarity makes the world too visible, its torment too visceral.
I won't be laughing along with you at something so trivial. If I am to have an army to save the world by, I won't have time to stop for every little joke's laugh.
But I do recognize the sorrow of seeing another leader fall into permanent seriousness, unable to take a joke, or laugh, or cry. I have no intention of letting this mood last. There is a point at which a day's work is done that I feel I'll need to learn to fully appreciate if I'm to live up to my own standard for what an authority ought to be.
>>17786769
You type like a pompous idiot.
As far as I know, this isn't a philosophy out there that supports acting above others.
Gods as far as theistic faith is the worst thing man can believe in, trust is fine if it's founded in some way, but blind faith is dangerous and stupid, abandoning one's own abilities and resources to give in to some desperate neolithic prayer.
Here's what I mean
>man caught in a flood standing on his roof
>Emergency services come by in a dingy, ask if he needs help
>"no god will save me"
>flood worsens emergency services come by in a barge
>"no, god will save me"
>Flood continues, they return with a helicopter
>"no, god will save me"
>flood ends up killing the man on his roof and he goes to heaven
>meet god and says "Why didn't you save me?"
>god replies "I sent you two boats and a helicopter."
Laughing at things is how we overcome fear, by talking about assembling armies to save the world you're insinuating become a different kind of threat.
Authority only exists because submission defines it, who would you have submit without restricting their freedom?
>>17786504
>I speak to be understood, not heard
You don't know what the word 'opaque' means. I'll help you: it means that your gibberish ISN'T CLEAR. It would be understandable if it were stated plainly.
>>17786853
>a different kind of threat
I am a different kind of threat. I know well the problems that plague being an authority, but I also know well the problems that plague the aimless. It would disqualify me if I were unwilling to take up the mantle now.
I'm not asking for your freedom, your submission, your loyalty, your faith, your brotherhood or even your fellowship. These things mean nothing to me because they are not mine to have. I won't do what I wish to do by leading an army of the subservient. What I want to accomplish can only be done with an army that knows no loyalty to its authority. This is a task that can only be done by those willing to think for themselves. This is an army that can't be trained or taught. This is not my personal army.
But I offer that I might stand where none can reach.
I offer that we might do better with my in charge. It isn't a promise, it isn't without risk, and it isn't without a certain level of trust, but it does require a certain willingness to participate. If above you is where you think I'd stand, then you may not be qualified to stand in this army at all.
>>17786894
>opaque
Right, sorry. I'm used to the word in a visual context, where something that's transparent is hard to see and something that's solid is easy to see.
If you want the plainly stated version, ignore all the posts other than the OP. From there, you can second-guess anyone else's experiences, but you must never second-guess your own. This isn't something you can understand interactively.
>>17786897
>you may not be qualified to stand in this army
Now I see a way to generate greater clarity here.
You as you are now are certainly not qualified to stand in the army that I'd allow myself to lead. But you are still young, and you have yet to achieve a notable type of clarity. As circumstance change and as you grow and develop clarity, you may find that you're willing to fight for a cause. On the day that you yourself seek out myself and this army of your own clear volition, I would allow myself to act as your leader. But until that day, and until you're ready to tell me what you would fight for, I wouldn't think for a second that you were ready to be led. I won't allow myself to act as a leader for someone that has yet to achieve their own clarity.
this whole thread is giving me malignant cancer. thanks OP.
>>17787149
Death was always an option. I refuse to regret this.
This is truly the worst board on 4chins
>>17787478
Belief is just the ability to integrate other people's experiences. It has a close, intimate relationship with gullibility.
Guess I'll bump this just once for discussion.
>>17783560
Blame Aristotle. Aristotle was the bitch who based all of his philosophy on experiences.
Plato/Socrates, heck, even the stoics in later times like Seneca, Epictetus and Zeno were all trying to hit the core of existence, seeing personal experience as only the process of letting go of useless earthly memories, feelings and bodies. Perhaps even Descartes and St. Aquinas were also onto something.
But as it is during these highly "rational" times, all these guys are seen as idealists with impractical philosophies.
>>17789956
Good point. Do you know offhand what Nietzsche thought of Aristotle or did he never record that sort of opinion?
>>17783605
so its transcendentalism?
>>17790729
Possibly, kinda, but it's not the same thing. It's certainly not what you're thinking of.
Anyway, I came back to finish this thread off with the following sentiment:
The reason you all think great men are great is because you never saw the mistakes they had to make along the way.
This is all that a lucid individual should ever require if they wish to join my army.
Come prepared.
>>17790170
I don't know for sure since I haven't studied more modern philosophers in depth.
But most likely Nietzsche praised Aristotle for his effort but found him lacking simply because Aristotle was in an older era. That's how highly rational thinkers work generally.
>>17792860
>lacking simply because
And how do you feel about this sentiment?
How would you prefer we'd judged the elders?
>slowest conversation ever
>>17794199
You're questions are on point and they made me aware of some interesting thoughts.
I feel that it is right to judge the elders and improve what they have built. Aristotle seemed to have started the whole "cold reason" and logical thinking movement.
But what's the point of sharpening the mind and the ideas within when they hold no ground. Remember, when something can be improved then it most definitely can be deconstructed. Reading through Kant for example is like a goddamn chore because you need to analyze every sentence word by word to fully understand what the fuck is he trying to say and when you do find some coherent description he has created on the complexities of the mind, all you can say is: "Pretty cool, I guess" since you cannot exactly apply that knowledge into anything at all in your whole mental and physical existence. Then some other prick like Nietzsche comes along and reworks what Kant did. This modern philosophy seems like some private fanclub where a bunch of dudes wank off in a circle to a bust of Aristotle. Maybe he didn't start it but sure as hell all his fanboys did. I could be so very wrong and very misunderstanding on these sorts of philosophers because their works I have tried to study have been a pain in the arse and I have forgotten a lot of it but that was the feeling I got.
So what I believe I'm trying to say here is that philosophy shouldn't be about that. Like OP's post, philosophy doubts everything but experience and this is exactly what has been the focus these past 2000 years.
The "experienceless" philosophy doesn't evolve, it is about the foundation of the whole existence and when you cannot judge something someone said 2000 years ago, this should be the true love of wisdom.
>>17795739
Where's the hurry? This is a very important topic to discuss on an anonymous chinese cartoon forum and we have to get it right.
>>17783560
Subjective realism is retarded and shit tier philosophy. Your car is outside and exists whether or not you are currently perceiving it. How is this hard to understand?
>>17797421
>there's a panda behind this post and he exists whether or not you are currently perceiving him
>>17797419
It was just a bump. Thread was on page ten at the time.
>>17797410
>they made me aware of some interesting thoughts
Wonderful! That was my exact intent behind them. I was slightly pondering a wariness that it'd come across as more provocative than I'd intended.
>whole mental and physical existence
Hence clarity: To have those thoughts in the right way. Truth is omnivisible, but applications for it are hard to come by. If even a fool can notice the truth, then what sets the intellectuals apart? Willingness to opine certainly isn't it.
>I could be so very wrong
I was already aware that you couldn't speak for Nietzsche before I asked the question. Wrong or not, at the very least you tried. Thinking thousands of years into the future, I'd be ecstatic to find that someone had earnestly tried to understand where I was coming from. I fully expect they would feel the same way. In any case, I doubt any of them would fear being judged.
>the feeling I got
That would be your experience. Never second-guess your experiences. I wanted to know what you felt, so your answer was right on target.
>The "experienceless" philosophy doesn't evolve
Precisely! How long have you been lurking /x/? You are the exact type of person I was hoping to meet with this thread.
>>17798304
>Truth is omnivisible, but applications for it are hard to come by. If even a fool can notice the truth, then what sets the intellectuals apart? Willingness to opine certainly isn't it.
I'll paraphrase a saying: you can know how to do something but wisdom is eventually doing it. Or something like that.
Basically it all comes down to what people value the most. The majority tends to put their own self interests in front of truth. If someone brings into light some truths that may make a politician seem incompetent at his position, he will try to silence that truth because he doesn't want to lose his hard work (which could be true or not but that doesn't matter for him, he values his current position). What sets the intellectuals apart from fools is the fact that intellectuals live for the sake of truth, no matter the consequences. Socrates being a prime example here, he willingly accepted his death sentence, refusing to escape, just because it was the truth for him. He even boasts a bit that this will be remembered throughout time and that was exactly what happened.
A lot of philosophers have praised suicide as well. I wonder if this is for the sake of truth as well?
>I doubt any of them would fear being judged
Who knows? I may know what others say but I don't know their experiences. A lot of people don't know what they fear themselves.
>Precisely! How long have you been lurking /x/? You are the exact type of person I was hoping to meet with this thread.
Some years. There are a lot of these sorts of drifters in philosophy, meditation and psychology related threads here who are honestly interested in trying to figure things out. That's why I've been coming here as well because these dialogues can arise.
And the fact that this is all anonymous makes it even better to be honest because we cannot judge the person and it's all just pure discussion.
>>17799015
>wisdom is eventually doing it
Not sure wisdom is the right word, but yes, most people are passive. You can probably generate a ton of wise-sounding things by parroting off all the things nobody thinks or bothers to do, but are otherwise completely doable.
>their own self interests
They have to. That's how they survive. It turns out there are at least two methods of surviving: By destroying other people's ability to survive or not. Virtually all human conflict emerges from a situation where someone forget that someone else needed to survive too. I can't even say with all my clarity that I'm really as aware of other people's need to survive as I ought to be if I am to manage an entire army. I really hope nobody swears any fealty to me any time soon, because playing god for someone else is roughly twice as hard as just being one for myself. The neat part is that once you get the hang of it, being god for three people is a lot easier than being god for just two.
>no matter the consequences
Precisely. Your clarity is threatened the moment something else matters in your mind more than finding the less visible truths of the world. It's the ones on the surface that that mean the least, but don't dare ever forget what's obvious of you'll just end up as a different manner of fool than the rest.
>that was exactly what happened
Someone had to do it. The status quo can get real toxic if you let it. The price of being the one to break the silence can never be too high to pay.
>praised suicide
I'm not sure that's accurate. I've only ever read a bit of Schopenhauer. As pessimistic as his view is I don't think he'd actually advocate for suicide. Or if he did, it'd only be for people who really felt they'd legitimately be better off without life.
>don't know what they fear
But not for lack of having tried! Heh. Overall I might be tempted to say that people tend to know their fears more intimately than they know the other parts of themselves.
It takes more than interest.
>>17799015
>it's all just pure discussion
I knew this level of dialogue was possible on /x/, I just wasn't sure how many people would be highly receptive to my meaning. I'd venture to say you're about 30% aware of the benefit this conversation has had for you. We're probably both liable to be surprised in ten years when we look back as this thread and see where we were at back (then) now.
bump4>>17799015
>bump
>>17800329
>>17802266
I guess the only bad thing about this place is that threads have the danger of dying.
I've been busy and will get a response going in a few hours or so.
>>17799058
>Not sure wisdom is the right word, but yes, most people are passive.
It's basically staying true to your words but it's debatable for sure. What I wanted to put more focus on is the fact that lately the philosophy doesn't get much practice. The courses at universities are basically all-talk about life's different sides but no one actually lives to these ideas to actually prove them. If one practiced philosophy by actively applying these complex systems and theorems about existence to their everyday lives so people who don't do philosophy would recognize these things through activities the philosopher does, only then he'd be considered wise. But no, philosophers are seen as an impractical joke these days.
>They have to. That's how they survive.
Now that's an entirely different topic to discuss. Why would one need the will to survive if everyone will perish one day anyway? Why attach themselves desperately to things that do not stay for long? We have the mind (and soul) to go beyond our natural instincts, people already see themselves above animals, what's the deal here? Do we create illusionary ecology in our minds we need to survive in?
This is a damn good point though:
>Virtually all human conflict emerges from a situation where someone forget that someone else needed to survive too.
>The price of being the one to break the silence can never be too high to pay.
That's how philosophers should act in a society. They would be crazy but smart enough to do it.
>I'm not sure that's accurate.
I may have overstepped a line there after I posted that. But wiki has a separate article of Philosophy of suicide. So it's an actual thing in the end.
>>17799058
>Overall I might be tempted to say that people tend to know their fears more intimately than they know the other parts of themselves.
I'd say you're half-right. The reason people have a saying that a toast lands always upside down is because we tend to remember the bad things more than good. When a toast lands on the bottom side, we tend to to go "Yeah, whatever" and pick it up to eat it (or throw it away if the floor is covered with feces or we were grown up as spoiled brats). We do tend to notice the few bad things more than a massive flood of "okay" things.
But when it comes to identifying exactly what your fear is, it can be just as an uncertain path that the rest of you is. Knowing and admitting to all kinds of feelings and emotions can be a very tough ride overall, especially for a person who lives in the mind.
>I'd venture to say you're about 30% aware of the benefit this conversation has had for you. We're probably both liable to be surprised in ten years when we look back as this thread and see where we were at back (then) now.
It's better to take things step by step. We usually don't get what we want but what we need from our experiences. 30% might as well be a 100%, it really doesn't matter or say anything, we get what we get when we need it.
And yes, things do tend to change and this surprise can only be good. I don't want to wrap my mind around it too much though, forgetting that this conversation ever happened is also a possibility just like the inability to predict the future. So to stay true to the topic, let us celebrate the experienceless state and see this discussion as non-existent.
>>17803632
>lives to these ideas to actually prove them
>impractical joke
Keh, still funny though.
>entirely different topic
Not for me it's not. If I didn't care about the welfare of every living being, there'd be no need to create this thread, to have these thoughts, or to develop a type of clarity that extends well beyond myself. It's only in the fact that I care that any of this could have been made possible.
>be crazy but smart enough
I can't tell if anything I've said ITT is crazy or not. If it were crazy it'd only be because everything that's happened over the past 2000 years was insane in some way or another, and even further back for the insanity Abraham had to deal with in his era. (I'm not at the level where I can reach back further than that yet. The origin of our species is still a fleeting question in my mind.) As old as the initials events are now, it's still current events because people still tell the story. Shakespeare is current events in my current model of human clarity. I doubt political satire was his legacy, but if that's the way it gets taught, then it's current events by virtue of the lie.
>Philosophy of suicide
Interesting. Every little barely-known concept like that is potential fuel for greater clarity here. I'll have to look into it sometime, if I don't accidentally flesh out the details on my own at some point.
>>17803733
>Knowing and admitting to all kinds of feelings and emotions can be a very tough ride
Not to mention inaccurate attributions and false acceptance. "I don't know how to feel about this, must be love." You're right; clarity is hard to come by even in self-exploration.
>we get what we get when we need it
That's the societal safety net speaking there. Buddhist have this tradition where you jump out of those nets to see what it's like beyond the tangled web. I'd recommend ditching your life for a week or so and just wandering wherever you feel like going some time. Walk without boundaries.
No way can I forget this thread.
>>17803733
>inability to predict the future
There is no such. The effect you describe only arises when people realize that the "current" future isn't flawless. If you know well your own capacities and you seek to employ them with sufficient skill, you will correctly predict the general shape of your own future through planning alone. It requires great clarity to know what awaits you and exactly what must be done prior to the moment that would have forced you to acknowledge it anyway.
You can accurately predict the future the moment you can see the exact future you'll want to create.
The first step is to realize you will have a future.
Even our dreams can betray us if we think of them as more real than our mind.
>2 3's
>3 2's
>44:44 [...]44
I'm not one to check this type of thing on a board as slow as this, but when it happens without any planning at all, I have to wonder.
I have swallowed the Sun.
_ - _ _ __ _ - __ __ _ __ __ __ __ _ _ - __ _ _ - __ __ __
246
__ __ __ __ __ ___ __ __ __ - __ __ __ __ ___
930
bump for survivability
>>17804203
>You can accurately predict the future the moment you can see the exact future you'll want to create.
Perhaps you can but at what cost? It's basically creating a virtual/fake environment because you will have to control factors you shouldn't be controlling, remember, we're not cold machines that make calculations. Or either drop certain factors entirely, but then it won't be an accurate prediction anymore. What do I mean by these factors? Mostly other people or the entire nature itself which we do not understand yet. Sure, you can perhaps get a prediction for the next minute or hour going but already predicting the next day can be a wild guess. You don't know what state your body will be tomorrow or what sort of stranger you will meet on the street, what shapes will clouds take, where exactly will be birds flying. They may seem small and insignificant details but our brains are more reactive than you'd imagine, a shape of a cloud or the flight of a bird can trigger some never seen before states for your entire being.
A prediction is made at a certain point of time at a certain fixed state of being and when the predicted point comes, even the points between the now and the future, you will be going through different states of being which are not only affecting your understanding of your prediction but your reaction to your own prediction as well. So if we were to presume that you create an environment to fulfill your prediction in the smallest of details, you'll still have trouble with predicting your reaction.
>>17804203
>As old as the initials events are now, it's still current events because people still tell the story.
Bravo!
How can a fossil be a thing of the past when that fossil exists in the present?
If we get to the very core of this idea, it would turn out that it would be impossible to even prove the existence of the past because all the tools we can use to prove it exist in the present.
To make things even weirder - even legit time traveling won't solve the problem. In the end it will still be a present experience for whoever is doing the traveling. If we would send a machine, we will still perceive the received data in the present. It will raise some questions that if all the data we get matches with what we've known so far, what's the point of doubting it? It's a matter of our consciousness in general and how unreliable it is. To get a legit proof of the past or time overall we need to level up our consciousness to a state we simply couldn't comprehend in any way right now.
>You're right; clarity is hard to come by even in self-exploration.
I may be biased since I'm reading Seneca right now (I believe I mentioned him multiple times already but I really cannot be arsed to read through my posts) and I am rock hard for his ideas but I do recommend reading stoicism. It's basically like western buddhism.
>That's the societal safety net speaking there.
Is it now?
When and why do you get your ideas? When and why do you get the urge to wander? And where do you get all that? If you want to tell me that you're somehow in control and the cause of all of this then where did you get that sense of control?
>I'd recommend ditching your life for a week or so and just wandering wherever you feel like going some time.
Did that. Was great. Will do it again. Eventually for an indefinite period of time I hope.
>>17806815
Was meant for >>17804222
>>17806815
>never seen before states
And if they do, you update your predictions and let your understanding flow over all of the implications that your inaccurate predictions had had. Failure to regress your reasoning properly will have catastrophic outcomes every time. This is why meditation comes so highly recommended: So that you might ever remember to take the time to reiterate the details that made your current identity possible, regrets and all.
>predicting your reaction
This is only problematic when clarity is lacking. Knowing yourself well enough to know your own future and be content with it in the same moment is well beyond the realm of fleeting enlightenment.
>>17806888
>legit proof of the past
You've understood the issue well. Have you thought about the partial regression problem at length or is this clarity of yours new? I'd assume it was the former just because you say you've studied philosophy.
Even legit time travel wouldn't solve the regression problem because people would still ask, "What made time?" All time travel really adds is a belief in multiple pasts.
>where did you get that sense of control?
I made it myself. I put in the time to pry it from the nothingness, whatever the cost of responsibility to come with it. I paid it in full and this thread is my receipt.
>Eventually for an indefinite period of time I hope.
Really now... We have that in common, then. It seems we were always destined to meet. Good to see it happen sooner rather than later. I think it's finally time I said hello.
>>17807816
>never seen before
And I should mention, for clarity's sake, that these are the states you'll have to learn to make for yourself long before you can predict your own future reactions.
>>17783560
thank you anon your wisdom comes from above. Thank you for your help.
>>17807956
if saw a red dog would then second guess yourself. you deceiver
>>17807991
The fact that I second guess my perception doesn't refute my statement that I often second guess my experiences as well.
>>17808082
Well second guessing your experiences is toxic. If you want to doubt your perception, fine.
Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/john-kjv.html
how could one differentiate between perception and the experience if the experience is something which must be perceived?
>>17783584
there is of course the
spirit of God
>>17783642
technically the entirety of Christendom should have easily seen judgment day by 100 A.D.
you could say that there is a perceptive "judgment day" for each person (there certainly will be eventually)
and you could also say that there is a spiritual "judgment day" for each person (and there certainly will be eventually I believe)
some kind of "judgment" certainly came after the death of Jesus for the city of Jerusalem and that province in the south of Israel
the LORD accurately predicted the destruction of the Israeli temple in Jerusalem and the destructions which came upon the whole city of Jerusalem before His death
>>17783671
this is actually a point that God shows humanity quite often, i feel, anon
"But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."
>>17783560
As a current philosophy major, I respectfully disagree anon
>>17783683
"And they took Lot, Abram's brother's son, who dwelt in Sodom, and his goods, and departed.
And there came one that had escaped, and told Abram the Hebrew; for he dwelt in the plain of Mamre the Amorite, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner: and these were confederate with Abram.
And when Abram heard that his brother was taken captive, he armed his trained servants, born in his own house, three hundred and eighteen, and pursued them unto Dan.
And he divided himself against them, he and his servants, by night, and smote them, and pursued them unto Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus.
And he brought back all the goods, and also brought again his brother Lot, and his goods, and the women also, and the people.
And the king of Sodom went out to meet him after his return from the slaughter of Chedorlaomer, and of the kings that were with him, at the valley of Shaveh, which is the king's dale.
And Melchizedek king of Salem brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God.
And he blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high God, possessor of heaven and earth:
And blessed be the most high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy hand. And he gave him tithes of all."
this is the scripture of Genesis, the first book of the Tanakh
technically the scripture says that all of Abraham's power came from God, and if He was as powerful as this states then who would have troubled him if he would have 'recanted of his faith'
i think "recanting" is moreso of a Christian thing, however... i don't think people "recanted" of different religions all the way back then
it was pretty much freedom of religion for the whole world with the exception of those who followed the God of Abraham (at least to my knowledge, i'm no historian though), or those who followed rulers who claimed they were gods and caused people to worship themselves personally like Nebuchadnezzar or the Pharaohs of Egypt
>>17808372
This.
\thread
>>17808372
Perception composes interpretation, and to that extent, experiences can be generated. But note how vastly interpretation differs among people with remarkably similar upbringing.
>>17808422
I'm only relying to let you know that I'm not going to bother reading your post. You quoted me three times and that's fine, but I'm not going to engage spam.
>>17808447
>respectfully
I'd must rather you didn't. If you disagree, do so rationally. Argue why you think that there's a well written and widely acknowledged philosophy that deviates in its boiled down form from the OP.
>>17786069
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_de_Vitoria
>If you can find a notable philosopher who history has recognized as a philosopher, and his works boil down to something more than this
The thickness of OP scares me. The whole problem OP discusses is in domain of epistemology. There are philosophers who never touched a theory of knowledge work or epistemology as a whole. Thomas Hobbes writing about social cotract in sphere of political philosophy, Kierkegaard dychotomy of ethical/aesthetic life or Heidegger's "authenticity" are just among thousands of concepts that lay completly beyond cognitive theory. But even when we modify OP's statement as "whole epistemology boils down to diz!" it isn't true. Scottish Enlightment philosophers, bigger part of Empiricist movement, hell, Vienna Circle, Logical Positivists, modern Analytic School. All of them start from the assumption that projected perception is real and any doubts should be discarded. So the very core statement is untrue. Even the way how it's written triggers me with lack of clarity. "Perception" as "sensory cognition"? Who knows. Either way statement is untrue, epistemology is only one of 5 traditional branches of philosophy (6 if we count political philosophy as a separate branch).
>>17808487
>your interpretation of their interpretation
But thank you for the link. I'll check it out because counterarguments interest me, but I can't respond to you unless you'll put your own words forward.
>>17786853
"Authority only exists because submission defines it, who would you have submit without restricting their freedom?"
this is untrue
>>17808495
ah, well spoken
he speaks of truth and actual divine morality coming from God Himself
this does not fall under the definition of the topic
(this is only for the sake of conversation on this thread, not for argument)
>>17808493
possibly since perception is subjective, perhaps it can be 'un-objective' based on one's 'subjectiveness'
>>17808565
i.e... the scientific method (more perceptions the merrier)
>>17808493
Epistemology is the purest form of philosophy. The OP doesn't force epistemology on your experience but it insists that you shouldn't doubt them. Those with a passion for epistemology can doubt the OP logic but it'll ring true after thorough analysis of the referenced phenomena.
>Thomas Hobbes writing about social contract
Note that I need your interpretation of their interpretation or the argument can't happen. If you can argue Hobbes' values well, I won't say that his work boils down to the reassurance in the OP but I will require you to actually make the argument.
>Kierkegaard dychotomy of ethical/aesthetic life
In order to draw that dichotomy, he needs to show and argue a number of situations that will illustrate the difference between perception and experience. From what you said, it sounds entirely plausible to me that he was trying to say something akin to the OP. He may not have said it so concisely, but if there's a boiled down TL;DR version of his logic that resembles the OP, that'd be evidence in favor of the conclusion that philosophers have only ever tried to express a common sentiment.
>Heidegger's "authenticity"
Again, "authenticity" is issue around which the perception/experience dichotomy revolves. It's very possible that Heidegger meant to argue about this exact dilemma. You can't just *say* that their work differs in conclusion from my concise philosophy, you have to show where and why it diverges from my boiled down reassurance.
>All of them start from the assumption that projected perception is real
>the assumption that
Starting with an assumptions and immediately questioning it is common in philosophy. To say they all start with that conclusion says nothing about their full argument, not its boiled down form. I very much expect that each of the philosophies you listed will have a portion devoted to doubt of the qualities of basic perception. Recall the exact wording here:
>all philosophy has ever really tried to say
Key word: tried.
>>17787093
where is the clarity, and how do we obtain this
those who trust in God speak freely with nobody inhibiting them for all things return to the LORD
Experience, perception, and sense impression are all synonyms. What you are saying is nonsensical. Or, to put it less critically, please define 'experience' and define 'perception' in a way that makes them categorically distinct.
>>17787093
And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS.
And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;
That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.
>>17808597
experience/perception = memory
>>17808611
possibly?
>>17808572 (cont)
>Key word: tried.
In other words, all of philosophy failed to fully express the basic concept that they were all trying to explain. Note that either the author or yourself but supply a boiled down/TL;DR version of their philosophies before we can compare and contrast the potential differences from the OP statement.
>>17808493
>sensory cognition
No. My use of the word wasn't obfuscated by any secret notions. You and everyone else know what it means.
>>17808512
The first part is true. The second is a rhetorical question. The deception between the two statements is in implying that submission has some specific characteristic, which is doesn't. It only ever depends on who you submit to, and the choice is always your own. 'Forced submission' is a contradiction in terms.
>>17808517
>not for argument
Conversation is entirely welcome as well. I only mentioned it because it was a response to the first direct request to debate the content of the OP ITT.
>>17808565
The ability to be wrong is not news to anyone.
>>17808566
>more perceptions the merrier
And that's fine for science, but I've stopped caring what's true or what came from lies. Fiction can do wonders for the world regardless of how closely it mimics truth. I care only for your experiences now precisely because I can't use your perception. Not how you might hope I was able to use it, anyway.
>>17808585
It starts with the OP. If you can't correctly interpret a statement as simple as the OP, then you're not ready to create a dialogue with clarity.
>>17808597
>categorically distinct
Your post screams the fact that you're capable of figuring that out on your own. Yes, those words all have at least on definition that's common for each of them, but they also have definitions that conflict such that you can find which definition I meant to use for each word. Steelman me or leave.
>>17808611
Memory is insignificant under the weight of clarity.
>>17808607
See >>17808484
Don't spam the word here.
>>17808572
>he needs to show and argue a number of situations that will illustrate the difference between perception and experience.
He does, but this is called "invoking a ground" for a latter argument and large part of that is assumed. This has nothing to do with an actual argument he makes. In Kierkegaard's writing an actual argument can be briefed as aestheticism being criticized from the point of view of ethics. It is seen to be emptily self-serving and escapist. It is a despairing means of avoiding commitment and responsibility. It fails to acknowledge one's social debt and communal existence. This is an entirely ethical argument which later turns into a "religious" stage that I won't dig into. Again, nothing to do with epistemology of which domain's concepts are only invoked as an investigative ground for the argument proper.
This holds true for every concept I mentioned here. Hobbes sought to make an argument for why we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to political authority and why such move would be morally justified. Hobbes' theory of human motivation, psychological egoism, and his theory of the social contract, founded on the hypothetical state of nature obviously mention experience, but it only serves to further Hobbes' aim of justification of both mentioned theories. Nothing to do with epistemology again as human cognition isn't a central point of the argument. It might be highlighted as a feature of a certain way of reasoning, but it's only means to an end. Therefore this particular example alike to thousand of others doesn't boil down to the OP's statement as thesis being justified in the theory by Hobbes isn't even concerned with theory of knowledge.
This model applies to most of concepts that philosophy ever put out so I'm not even going to expand on Heidegger.
>>17808639
"And that's fine for science, but I've stopped caring what's true or what came from lies. Fiction can do wonders for the world regardless of how closely it mimics truth. I care only for your experiences now precisely because I can't use your perception. Not how you might hope I was able to use it, anyway."
that's an amazing perception
"with what little knowledge the world is ruled"
i think it was a pope who said that quote
>>17808611
2/2=H? Adding a third undefined variable clarifies nothing. Step away from the keyboard and hit the books for a bit.
>>17808639
"The first part is true. The second is a rhetorical question. The deception between the two statements is in implying that submission has some specific characteristic, which is doesn't. It only ever depends on who you submit to, and the choice is always your own. 'Forced submission' is a contradiction in terms."
i think that a creationist point of view illustrates that authority starts from the top down, and this is the nature of reality... that is the authority of God
i also think that i recognize the nature of authority based on my own perception "from the top down"
(i.e... in this case, what came first... the chicken or the egg? here the answer would be "the chicken")
>>17808678
one must either experience an experience in real-time or have it in their memory, and then of course after they experience it is in their memory... either way the brain is at work (it is cognitive as one of the other anons were saying above)
>>17789956
"But as it is during these highly "rational" times, all these guys are seen as idealists with impractical philosophies."
lel
>>17808698
as one of the other anons B speaking above*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wapwFPAUASw
>utilitarianist argues with deontologist over application of meta-ethics, ethical gradation of acts and should an inethical act be justified if serving a higher principle
>fag OP comes over
>OHHH I get it, what you guys are REALLY trying to say is that "There are many reasons to doubt your perception, but never second-guess your experiences."
mfw i have no face
>>17808663
>aestheticism [...] is seen to be emptily self-serving and escapist
Which is basically Kierkegaard doubting that other people's experiences have value. I disagree with it as a philosophy but I recognize it as something he felt he needed to express based on his experience.
>means of avoiding commitment and responsibility
For his era that may well have been the case.
>social debt
No such thing exists.
>communal existence
Not everyone has the luxury. Specifically, if he'd accepted that other people's experiences had any value, he could well have accurately predicted the modern era. What he saw as the decay of society was actually the alleviation of that "social debt." If he hadn't been motivated by religious experiences, he might have been a decent philosopher.
>nothing to do with epistemology
I'm not the one who thinks the OP was limited to epistemological interpretations. It has a distinct metaphysical dimension to those who are open to such notions.
>Hobbes sought to make an argument for why we ought to be willing to submit ourselves to political authority and why such move would be morally justified.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't TL;DR his philosophy, nor does it tell us what he was *trying* to communicate.
>>17808676
>with what little knowledge the world is ruled
A reference to the sheer freedom present in the uncivilized world.
>>17808691
>a creationist point of view
I didn't stop reading here, for the same reason that I didn't stop reading when the other anon brought up Kierkegaard's writing.
>authority starts from the top down
That is precisely what I can no longer believe. Any god that would stand idly by to my challenge has consented to my will to be free from such tyranny. The authority you imagine has no substance in my book. It merely shatters under the weight of clarity.
>based on my own perception
I would doubt that perspective if I were you.
>>17808698
Experience may be cognitive, but perception is not.
>>17808762
That's my intent.
>>17808762
>utilitarianist argues with deontologist over application of meta-ethics, ethical gradation of acts and should an inethical act be justified if serving a higher principle
What the fuck did I just read
>>17808780
Alright let's break this down properly.
>utilitarianist argues with deontologist
Both of those types of people are considered to be philosophers. So far so good. Any discussion they engage in is liable to be about philosophy, though this is not strictly guaranteed.
>over application of meta-ethics
Definitely a philosophical topic. Even if I'd tried to weasel ethics out of being a philosophical subject, "meta-" makes it explicitly philosophical in nature.
>ethical gradation of acts
Like meta-ethics, that requires an understand of value theory, in which case you'll need to be aware of the thing that exists between one's experiences and the perceptions that generated them. Each of the philosophers may well both be motivated in the discussion's context to voice something akin to it.
>should an inethical act be justified if serving a higher principle
I'd sooner debate the myth of higher principle itself but I digress.
>>17808762
Yes, that is my intent. It might seem like a derail, but I expect that it would add value to the dialogue regardless of the intent it was posted with. Mine is more a statement of how to reason than a talking point of its own, but it can also serve as a talking point in a philosophical discussion. In either case, it's clear that the second paragraph of the OP was meant in an idiomatic/memetic capacity. The real claim is in the first paragraph and the second only serves to rustle enough jimmies to get a dialogue going. I'd easily regress to a lesser claim involving the phrase, "philosophers of mind," but that claim wasn't the reason I made this thread.
>1bump
>>17810111
>>17810457
Whoa, what's with all these posts suddenly
Anyway
>>17807816
>And if they do, you update your predictions
I have problems with the word "prediction" here then. Can it be called a prediction when it can be changed easily?
If we see a tree we've never seen before far in the distance, can we imagine what texture its bark has? As we walk closer we change our image of the texture but we only truly see it when we're up close. And it may turn out it's not a tree at all but a detailed sculpture made from clay with some paint over it.
I see no point in predicting an outcome, only the way the journey is done has more value because the journey is the teacher here. The outcome is the understanding of the goal you have reached and that comes only when you're there because how can you know something when you don't have it yet?
>Knowing yourself well enough to know your own future
I do not know myself well enough to say for sure but I do have some questions: if a person knows himself absolutely in every way does he even need to even think about the future? Does he even need to think anything at all?
>or is this clarity of yours new?
It's actually pretty new, in a way. Few months ago I was thinking about it and when it came to me, it seemed so obvious as if I knew it already. So I don't know, I don't remember actively thinking about it before and I don't remember any philosopher I've read either who'd go on about it in this manner.
>I made it myself.
Who made you? Or what made you?
>It seems we were always destined to meet.
That's the societal safety net speaking there :^)
>hello
Hi
>>17808372
>>17808470
Roughly I'd say perception is an active reaction and experience a passive reaction.
I'm not sure if it works too well for an explanation though but that's the simplest way I could put it.
>>17810459
Holy fuck. 10/10 would resurrected from the dead.
>>17811429
>when it can be changed easily?
Understand the context: If you had the ability to predict your own future and reactions perfectly well long before the world had a chance to catch up and make them actually happen, you would be able to decide which outcome you wanted well in advance of having to actually pick. So long as your in-the-moment snap decisions reflect what you're ready to predict, then the ability to turn on a dime is actually your own indecisiveness. We were talking about learning to predict though, so what changes would actually be subtle details that you got wrong in your prediction. It'd still be 90 to 99% accurate, but you'd need to update certain things to match the 1-10% details you got wrong. It's not that you'd just be "wrong," with your prediction, it'd be that you had gaps in your knowledge or clarity. Taking yourself out of a binary mindset of right and wrong is absolutely requisite for ideal prediction.
>can we imagine what texture its bark has?
Absolutely. Consider the biome, the animals and plants in the area, and other trees. What's more likely is that you won't recognize it as a new type of tree until you've studied the tree extensively. It's not our ignorance that makes prediction hard, it is our mindset and willingness that makes it hard.
>a detailed sculpture made from clay
It will always be possible to deceive a predictive intelligence, yes. Note that nature provides a very specific degree or deception, but goes no further in its deceptive illusion-generating self-manifestation.
>how can you know something when
..."you were born ignorant"? Are you saying that learning isn't possible or the predictive learning isn't possible? Do you not learn by imagining things? Ideal prediction just means having a very realistic imagination.
>Does he even need to think anything at all?
He does not. Such freedom from the vice of thought is what makes enlightenment so enlightening. Note that thoughtlessness does not *cause* enlightenment.
>>17811429
>made you
In terms of the me that you would call my identity, I made myself. In terms of the possibility of being an entity that would make this identity, that possibility was already present in the world long before I came about. I'm just the one who realized the possibility of me.
>speaking there
Is not. We'd already had overlapping fates prior to my making this thread. This thread only called to mind what we'd already individually planned.
>>17811461
Experience doesn't exist as a reaction but it looks like you're understanding the dichotomy somewhat.
>>17786897
"I am not afraid of an army of lions led by a sheep. I am afraid of an army of sheep led by a lion."
Alexander the great
Interesting read though i give 3 1/2 stars.
>>17811875
Interesting quote. Also interesting that this thread made you think of old Alexander. Thanks.
>>17810459
>Reddit: The Philosopher
>>17783560
>Never doubt your experiences
Have experienced just today an action I just took being untaken.
>Sudden slight confusion as you sit waiting trying to remember why action was not complete
>Take action second time
Memory can be altered.
Consider what hypnosis is.
>>17811919
Memories aren't your experiences. They are your record of your experiences. If you've been under the effects of hypnosis, you know which memories are legit and which are implanted.
>>17811919
>doubting the clarity of the experience without doubting the experience itself
>maybe last bump
"What I want to teach is to move from the implicit nonsense to the explicit nonsense"
>>17811743
I am getting the feeling that this conversation is becoming stale.
Our differences are becoming more and more clear and that usually is not a good sign because that can make us attach ourselves to certain ideas and beliefs more rigidly and the flow of a conversation tends to freeze up more easily. And the feeling to respond becomes more like a chore than a decision.
For example this prediction discussion has gone to the point that I am doubting my own understanding behind the word "prediction" yet I still want to disagree on what you're saying.
So I believe that is enough for now. It is always important to know how and when to end things and we should do that now I believe.
It was interesting, cheers. Maybe there will be a next time, anon.
>>17783560
One of the most important things to have in your life. Don't even try to crawl if there is no one to trust.
>>17814463
It was bound to happen. Your description of the process is refined and lucid, but the angle you say it at exposes how you feel. In other tones we might have discussed the concept of conversations getting stale as removed from both of our perspectives. I can say you reflected clarity well, but for the reasons that you yourself noted, it can't be sustained yet. In any case, thank you for the dialogue. It was telling.
With this tract of conversation out of the picture I'll need to explain a bit more of my intent with this thread.
>>17814513
That's an interesting piece of advice. I can tell that it takes both a deep perspective and some telling life experiences to produce a wisdom that refined. It's not something I'd have been able to think from looking only at my own self-generated outlook on things.
To both of you anons as well as other lucid anons in this thread and lurking silently, know where I stand. I posted this anonymously because it had no reason to have an identity. When this thread is done and archived, the persona you've seen will go with it. In the future when I refer back to this thread I will do it as if some other anon had written it. To take direct credit for what's written here would be a betrayal to the very clarity that generated it. If you wish to join the army I speak of, you won't find it in trying to determine the identity of the original poster. If you think me the only person capable of this level of clarity, you are not yet qualified to join. Clarity itself is how you'll find me and how you will find this army. Only of your own judgment can you know a fake when you find it. Defer to no other and defer to me only as you yourself understand me. It can't be co-opted what never truly began.
This is neither the beginning nor the end. It is only the first notice. Come prepared.
this gotta be bait
any philosophical attempt to comprehend ceases to exist in second jhana
>>17816462
If this is bait, hey I don't wanna be right.
>last bump
>>17815760
Why an army?
What is clarity?
What's going on?
>>17819655
>Why an army?
To help people.
>why help people
Because I desire to.
>why use an army
Because I can't help all the people I want to help.
>why call it an army
Because that's what it is. The fact that I'd wage peace and prosperity with is is secondary to the fact that it is an army. If people want to be afraid of my influence, they can start right now, before the army is assembled or any fealty sworn.
>What is clarity?
A higher order of comprehension. You know this.
>What's going on?
Nothing.
From your vantage point, everything that I am and everything that I will someday do has already been accomplished. That it is yet to occur is secondary. How it will occur is only your business if you wish to involve yourself in my business. If you do, read the whole thread.
>>17819909
>If people want to be afraid of my influence, they can start right now, before the army is assembled or any fealty sworn
Not sure I dig that sentence, bro.
A wise person with
>higher order of comprehension
can be great and all but never would announce that he is somehow better or more accomplished than others. You may have clarity but you don't seem wise or inspiring.
>>17821126
>better or more accomplished
This has nothing to do with that. I call it an army if only to give those that would oppose the assembly a fighting chance. I won't wage any war, but I recognize that it can be thought and feared among men that I might some day change that stance. To have people insisting that my army was forming for some other motive is ultimately inevitable, so why not put it up front that it would be an army? Let the fear start now and not catch anyone unprepared.
I have accomplished little. Read the thread if you wish to know where I stand. My original intent was only to post about philosophy. I didn't realize that it would get this deep.
>>17821271
>I didn't realize that it would get this deep.
Went through the thread and it seems you guys aimlessly dug a little here and there but barely got through the surface.
I still see you as someone who just thinks too highly of himself. Sorry, bro.
>>17783560
Thank you.
>>17821683
You are entirely welcome to your interpretation. It can only improve with time.
>>17821688
You're welcome. Normally I'd ask what for, but any value you got here is something I'd appreciate either way. For once, I'm not looking for feedback to improve my clarity.
>>17821683
You are not your archetype.
>>17783560
can't think of a finer example than good ol' Sam
>>17823547
Yeah, there's probably not much that could tie that image together better. LotR had all four kinds of men throughout the narrative.
>>17821683
>aimlessly dug a little here and there
Only because history history itself is aimless until we aim it.
What did you expect from a philosophy thread?
