@Tfmonkey Are you using mage.space for these? That's the best one I've found.
@Tfmonkey You go to heaven for the weather...but hell for the people.
@d0c40r0 Meh, what people are into is their business as long as it doesn'tcost me money. This fetish is not my thing but shaming men for participating in it just seems like more tribal purity testing.
@Tfmonkey By consciousness, I mean, "That which has an experience." You feel a pain in your leg...you have the experience of pain.
What I'm contending is that saying something like, "We're all limited by our perception" still makes an assumption that we're all perceivers having perception. Making sense of perception is contentious, but the fact we're perceiving something is not.
Will respond more later, returning to work.
@Tfmonkey But even if we couldn't make sense of the world, would be still not be conscious? Like, wouldn't we still experience sights, sounds, etc...we just couldn't make sense of them. It seems like consciousness is an objective truth no matter what in this sense.
@Tfmonkey You're in very interesting territory. You're basically expressing Schopenhauer's view. Kant's genius was in recognizing a set of propositions that must be assumed true...or else you literally can't make sense of the world at all. Schop came along and said that our minds are arranged this way in order to fulfill the Will to Life...to survive in modern terms.
This is a profound thing. Even the deepest truths, like 1+1=2, are the result of the Will making sense of the world.
@Tfmonkey However, this point has been contentious. We’re expressing a view called “Nominalism,” which holds that abstractions don't exist. “Realists” think they do exist in a concrete way, Plato being foremost among them. Kant is known for a third view: “Conceptualism,” which holds they exist only as mental objects.
A modern, foundational read on nominalism is WVO Quine’s paper, “On What There Is.” An interesting response which challenges Quine’s view is “Holes” by Lewis and Lewis.
@Tfmonkey Ok, I watched and I see where we’re talking past each other.
You’re calling out reifying truth. Reification is a fallacy where one conceives an abstract concept as a concrete object. There’s no concrete object of “truth," "justice,” or “goodness." I totally agree with you on this point.
My contention could restate “There is no truth” to “The set of true propositions is empty,” which is clearly a contradiction. The set of true propositions is non-empty.
@Tfmonkey OK, I'll watch, but I do suspect you're confusing "truth" with "opinions." Philosophy is broader than just ethics, which is where any theory of values or living lies.
Saying there is no truth is clearly a self-contradiction and as of now I reject the proposition, but remain open to further examination. I think Kant may say something more believable: there's no access to noumena, only phenomena.
I'll watch and respond tomorrow. I'm going to do my evening meditation.
@Tfmonkey Opinions aren't objective, but saying that truth isn't objective is a category error. The entire point of the concept is that it is what it is despite your feelings for it. I agree that a concept like "worth it" is subjective, but not truth.
Saying there is no truth is a self-contradiction. So is saying truth is not objective (because you've just made an objective claim about truth).
@Tfmonkey I might agree that there's no use getting attached to a philosophy or making it part of one's identity or ego...if that's what you mean.
But at the same time, I think Schopenhauer's entire point is that it's not worth it. You can only delude yourself into thinking there's something that's worth it. He didn't think suicide made a difference either though, as the Will to Life lives on anyways.
I think philosophy goes beyond living too. It can be a search for Truth.
@Tfmonkey I think existentialism, and Nietzche, is just trying to paint lipstick on a pig. Schopenhauer doesn't pull punches. He calls it a pig.
The Pali Buddha is the same: all consciousness is suffering. All of it. But! There's a way out.
@Tfmonkey Schopenhauer pointed out that all of life is suffering. You struggle and strive to get what you want. If you don't get it, you're miserable. If you do get it, you eventually get bored, so you make up a new goal to go on struggling for. In any case you're fucked.
Pretty much all the bullshit that seems to happen in my life is due to the stupidity and weakness of other people. I'm sick of it.
I think one of the hardest things has been realizing that people I love (family) are straight up normies and are weak. They're exactly the kind of folks that deserve the suffering that they experience everyday in their lives, even though I love them anyways.
@Tfmonkey Fuck that. I never get government money. This is my one chance!
@Tfmonkey You set MGTOW.tv to private.
@Tfmonkey @basedbagel I've done my due diligence and now I'm just living my life. When shit starts I'll execute my "see ya!" algorithm. Until then, I'm going to find a way to scratch my philosophy itch (I was thinking about a PhD but fuck that...I'll just read on my own and find a way to get published).
@basedbagel @Tfmonkey The left is going to demonize you no matter what. Don't worry about giving them ammo unless you're a politician yourself.
But poisoning discourse...ya. Prof. Ed Dutton just did a video about decoupling, the mental ability to separate your logic from your emotions. There's tons of people saying this is a central issue in their lives: they want intellectual conversations but can't find people that decouple well. I seriously understand but don't have a solution.
@basedbagel @Tfmonkey It's clearly both. There's folks that get labeled an -ist for having grievances against a non-white person. There's folks that get labeled an -ist for having legit grievances against an entire culture. And there's folks that are undoubtedly an -ist because they're weak people looking for someone else to blame for their problems.
Joined Sep 2022
