Philosophy Redpill Thread

Why do those things sound "stupid" to you?

It sounds stupid in as much as it might seem on some level like one's anthropomorphising fundamental ontological categories of reality by calling them "masculine" and "feminine".

The same with God, for most of us the most accessible concept is human personhood so it makes sense the product of a finite mind seeking to interface with a potentially infinite noumena would initially formulate its interface using a personal concept.

It's like us only being able to imagine the brain as operating as a computer once we have invented computers. We can only bootstrap concepts we have functionally encountered for the purposes of our survival and self-development.

However once you accept there may be fundamental limitations to our ability to see beyond certain information-compressing cognitive structures (like the distinct between order and chaos - which seems pretty fundamental) it starts to become acceptable perhaps one sees these two things as distinctive unknowable noumena which are only best understood by bootstrapping concepts we have.

The notion of cycles and heterogeneity and homogeneity between these two forces or some of the metaphysical philosophy smart people in the past have used faith as a vessel for is interesting in that case.

I think the Kabbalah is interesting as a result because it also features this notion of two pillars - two forces both masculine and feminine and depicts a notion of them as homogeneous and heterogeneous.

Or the Yugas for their depiction of that progressive cycle as being different in the relationship between duration and the degree of novelty and its character and qualities in civilisational cycles but in turn all cycles perhaps.

Attached: Yugas_ShriHub.jpg (725x969 233.57 KB, 561.59K)

Qi is a big fat meme. Taoists say that it's vital life energy that you need to cultivate, but what good has it ever done anyone? If qi were really so important then you would think that the people who have been practicing Taoism for a thousand years would have more to show for it. People in Asian countries haven't exhibited super strength over the years. Most of them aren't even very relevant on the world stage. Western countries with little to no practice of Taoism rapidly eclipsed the countries which did practice it. Pure observation shows that Taoism doesn't grant any success and that mastery over qi is completely useless.

Well it depends how one measures achievement. For all of its achievements the West has been a very, very unstable civilisation for all its growth.

Taoism produces societies which are very stable.

Cut out the buzzwords (and pressing enter after every sentence). You spew out terms like "fundamental ontological categories," but what you're really saying is "I think that if we think the good then we win the world because think equals strong." Get real. Look at the real world. How many people do you see jumping over buildings because they didn't fuck things up in their own minds? How many people do you see beaming out of reality because they thought well enough? You need to realize that theory never trumps reality. No matter how you arrange your "ontological categories of reality" you're still here on planet earth and that isn't going to change. This "philosophy" of yours is actually just escapism. You could be going outside and feeding the homeless but instead you're sitting around muttering about inane concepts that have no basis in reality.

Oh yeah, Vietnam and Cambodia are so stable. You totally aren't just moving the goal posts right now.

The axiom 'As above, so below' is visible literally everywhere. There's a reason transsexuals are so abhorrent.

Eh, I think the elites' obvious preoccupation with occultism from both east and west speaks volumes.

I'm not going into a debate with you mate. Let's just say you're right, you win, I press the Enter key too much and don't feed the poor. What an idiot I am for not seeing what you've seen eh.

Attached: 5aafeec39bf6196109000007.png (912x516, 441.88K)

I'm just saying I think that's more a product of our own cognitive architecture than anything else. It's like you only get Special and General Relativity after Kant's Antinomies.

You can't handle even that much but you're still looking to unlock the secrets of the world? You can't even unlock the secrets of contrary opinion. You can go ahead and say "I literally just, like, can't even right now" and evacuate this part of the discussion, but the reality is that you're doing so because you don't have a response. If Taoism were so important then you wouldn't balk so hard when someone else tells you that it's shit.

Alright mate you are the man.

Attached: 4639472_640px.jpg (640x427, 34.6K)

It's the other way around - flesh-and-blood men and women are merely instantiations of those two fundamental poles. Thus said all the sages.

Again, it's the other way around - all ancient system posit that humankind is an image of the creator.As above so below, indeed.

Can indeed be studied profitably, is not Jewish per se and probably goes back to antediluvian mystery traditions.

Be more humble. It's fine if you cannot into metaphysics - very few people are cut out for it. The peasant tills the field, the warrior stands on the frontlines, the sage contemplates the source.

Psychologisms like that, while sounding smart, are the only thing left for modern man after having forgotten God.

Jewish pseudo-science taken straight from the Talmud and certain strands of Kaballah.

I've never heard so much elitism about fucking nothing before. I'm not going to turn into an autist just because it's the only language you people speak. If you can't say what you want to say in plain English then it's because you don't know what you're talking about. You want me to be "humble" because you want a slower playing field so as to give you time to bloviate. It's the same thing as a sloth asking the world to slow down.

You got any matter on that? I had a brief look once but I didn't explore it any depth because I felt like I didn't have context to know where best to start.

So what's God to you?

Empirically tested Jewish psuedoscience? Are you about to blow my mind with something?

Attached: neuron-galaxy.jpg (1008x633, 146.13K)

It's not elitism it's just we're not all the same and don't all appreciate the same things but for some reason it pisses you off.

I don't go to football stadiums to screech at fans they're doing something stupid watching a bunch of men pointlessly kicking a ball around which achieves or changes nothing.

I get that they enjoy it even if I don't and leave it at that. Why can't you bro?

All fields worthy of study have their special vocabularies and modes of experience. Physics, medicine, mathematics, engineering… metaphysics is no different.

No, it's because only a small part of reality can actually be communicated in formal language. This isn't even about metaphysics; the same is true for feelings. for sensual perception etc.

(Heil Hitler)
No. Either one accepts the antediluvian hypothesis (leading, possibly, to a nephilic origin), or one has to accept that Moses did indeed receive the teachings directly from God on Mt. Sinai.

Dion Fortune's books are an excellent introduction without any recourse to kike-isms.

God IS. The uncreated creator. Distant yet present. Personal yet apersonal. All-knowing, all-powerful etc. etc. Talking about God is like trying to empty the ocean with a spoon, as Augustinus said.

There is NO empirical evidence for relativism. None at all. Relativism is a psy-op designed to divert attention from the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments that showed without a shadow of a doubt that Earth does not move.

Nooo I said Relativity not Relativism. I don't think truth is relative but I do think Relativity is empirically sound so far:

Looks a little kooky but kooky is always fun, thanks.

Sorry, I made an error. I did indeed mean the theory of relativity.

When it comes to (((modern science))), always check the foundational premises first. What is the evidence that something like "black holes" exist in the first place? They are defined as being unobservable, for chrissakes - a punch in the face of every respectable old-school empirical physicist.

You can drive this much further if you have the intellectuall balls for it, e.g. what is the evidence that "space" exists at all? If you go really into this, you will find that this is not as laughable a question as it appears at first sight. Did you know, for example, that the idea of "space" created by a "big bang" "14 billionyears ago" can already be found in the Talmud and certain kabbalistic texts?

Akshually, as you will see, Dion Fortune is very level-headed, cautious, psycho-empirical and anti-new-age.

That's nothing more than an appeal to anger. "You're angry, so you're wrong." It's silly. You're over here saying that you're looking to improve yourself with philosophical insights. Stop getting butthurt just because I'm giving you the philosophical insights that you don't want to accept. You wanted "truth" and you got it. Now what you're experiencing is human folly. Contradiction hurts your fee fees so you imagine to yourself that I'm just evil in an effort to convince yourself that you don't have to think too hard about what I'm telling you. The reason that I'm so aggressive is because I know that every argument is just a clashing of egos. Do you have any idea how many arguments on the internet end with "Oh yes, I was being completely stupid and wrong. I apologize, and I will now change the way that I think."? Practically none. People who are wrong make excuses for themselves and then vacate the discussion when they're frustrated to the point of tears. That's what's happening right now. I'm telling you things that you don't want to hear so now you're latching onto whatever you can in an effort to pretend that what I say is somehow invalid. It's what always happens and I knew that it would happen from the start. That's why I didn't waste any time hoping that I could get you to just choose to call yourself wrong.

Also you've started pressing enter after every sentence again.

Using special vocabulary is one thing, using big words because you're trying to spend as much time saying nothing is another. Doctors have very good reasons for using huge, complicated words. They don't have the privilege of being able to say "The weird cell is bad because it makes us sick" and have it be sufficient. In metaphysics, however, you never EVER have that excuse. The English language is more than capable of accommodating whatever stupid thing you want to say. You can say "The earth is in a black hole and we're all fish people and sleeping makes the sun hate you" and you'll have no trouble. You only run into trouble when you're trying to talk about things that you don't really know about. Then you wind up saying stupid shit like "potentially infinite noumena" and "anthropomorphising fundamental ontological categories of reality." It's because what's being said there would sound completely STUPID if it were put into simpler terms.

Agree.

Yes, of course, using the special vocabularies as every field does, and the other user as well.

Completely disagree. Both are perfectly understable, to-the-point expressions which are not stupid at all. E.g.

Means, first, that there ARE fundamental ontological categories of reality - denying that would make you a solipsist or at least a relativist. Second, those principles CAN be anthropomorphized, as e.g. the Egyptians and many other cultures did. This is first-year philosophy stuff in every uni.

I get what you mean, and I detest airbags as well, but those two examples simply don't fit the bill. At all.

In fact, medical doctors in general ARE guilty of what you criticize. Many concepts in medicine are childishly simple but given fancy Latin terms to maintain professional status.

I don't think I do to be honest that's so far out on the fringe I don't think you'd be able to come back.

??
I mean my mind's open but again isn't that just because we are prone to see things in a specific way and there's something unavoidable about it? Does it only feature in the Talmud and kabbalistic texts or elsewhere? Aren't there similarities in the metaphysical speculation of all faiths? If not where else does one start? What about Greek philosophy is that in the lineage of it or not?

I'll definitely have a look.

You're right in that sometimes people invent jargon to obfuscate and increase the value of a relatively shallow expertise by making it seem harder to penetrate than it is (nothing is worse than lawyers for example for this). You're also right that sometimes people use big words or invent fancy-sounding conceptual bullshit to seem like they have a well-studied authority when they don't (all of the "white privilege" nonsense for example).

I hate that as much as anyone, but you can't say it's all the same. The people who do the latter at least do it in the same way an aposematic creature mimics the outward appearance of genuinely poisonous or venomous creatures - but if you know what you're looking for you can still tell the difference.

There was some screen someone had taken describing the observations of a philosophy teacher somewhere in Africa who started noticing that a lot of native African languages lacked vocabulary for abstractions like degrees of measurement, notions of the future or social contracts. I think in one of the languages the translation for a promise was "to bind one's feet". It was literally their attempt to do what you're saying - to "express it with simpler language".

But the fact those languages never invented a word for that in itself shows that the society speaking that language didn't have enough functional pressure to invent it - the use of the language in turn conditions the society.

Just because you think there is no point to these words might look to another person like someone saying there is no point to the notion of a "promise". Fine, if you think that way - but I'm hardly going to be able to have an argument about it with you when you and I don't share the same conceptual palettes to start with.

I might as well argue about the legitimacy of a vocabulary for colours with an animal that uses echolocation - maybe I'm being unfair in saying that but it feels like there's nothing to gain from arguing a point where you wouldn't be able to see why I'd see such things as legitimate (even if you then still further disputed my interpretation of them as legitimate because you saw something I didn't).

Attached: wtf2.jpg (7608x2984, 1.38M)

No, not at all. The modern concept of "space", with real, physical planets "out there", is less than 500 years old, being hotly contested up until the first half of the 19th century. Then state-sponsored education became so widespread that spatialism became the default cosmology for the children of the unwashed masses, i.e. us.

I don't know what you're referring to.

Big-bang cosmology is specifically Jewish, created on purpose to deny the very idea of a creating god (remember, they are a fallen race). Various Indian religions contain big-number cosmology as well, although I don't know much about that specific area.

In the authentic ones, yes, of course. The source is the same for all, after all. Beware of fake metaphysics like Talmudism and Religion of Cuck™, though.

Can't go wrong with the Bible and some of the Greeks. Beware of Pythagoras, the grandfather of masonry.

Science, philosophy, the arts, and of course, the community.

These are what I value.

What is religion, except what will someday be primitive mythology?
What is taoism, except another form of esoteric religion?
What is stoicism, except another branch of philosophy or psychology?

I am not satisfied by religion, nor the tao, nor stoicism alone.

To call myself a true person, I must seek to understand life and the universe with science, to understand its meaning with philosophy, to forge grand works of art with all that I've learned, and to use my arts and results of my work to build a community.

This is the ultimate path of humanity.

Grand technological works such as the internet are only possible be forging together all four of these concepts.

Without them, censorship, control, oppression, and utter foolishness is introduced.

Even here, on Zig Forums, what ideas are we NOT seeing? What work is not being done? Are we scientists here? Are we philosophers? Are we artists? Do we truly have a functional community?

If not, then we are missing something, and the thing we are missing: It must be found.

I mean for example it's conceivable you can have a "verb-based" language instead of a "noun-based" one. You could concievably have started with Heraclitus' notion of process as primary instead of Aristotle's notion of substance and both could have formed the bedrock with one playing a secondary role to the other.

What's interesting is when it comes to quantum mechanics we start to see these ideas strained when we're dealing with phenomena we could both describe as a substance (particles) or a process (waves).

However, most languages and ontologies around the world seem to fixate on a substance-based metaphysics and the ones which seem to be a little further towards a process-based one don't seem to produce very complex societies (although I don't know if you could say whether that's *because* of the language being more process-based).

So when you say some of the big accepted theories in the scientific enterprise today are drawn from notions in the Talmud - I'm asking whether you can really say those notions don't also crop up elsewhere and aren't more innate and fundamental to human beings in general? Given for example "substance is primary" seems pretty universal (with some perhaps exceptions) it's not surprising it might feature in the Talmud as much as it would in the modern day because ultimately it's an ontological feature most human beings seem to find most useful and functional to navigate the world.

Hopefully that makes sense - I mean I can't for example imagine how the Bible would have had a different ontology to the Talmud.

I mean the modern notion of Minowski space I can imagine would have been difficult or unpalatable in comparison with the Newtonian notion of it.

However the notion of it being "out there" or
and
isn't something I've looked at.

Gottfried Leibniz
In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world: "space is that which results from places taken together".[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes must therefore be wrong.[8]
Isaac Newton
Newton took space to be more than relations between material objects and based his position on observation and experimentation. For a relationist there can be no real difference between inertial motion, in which the object travels with constant velocity, and non-inertial motion, in which the velocity changes with time, since all spatial measurements are relative to other objects and their motions. But Newton argued that since non-inertial motion generates forces, it must be absolute.[9] He used the example of water in a spinning bucket to demonstrate his argument. Water in a bucket is hung from a rope and set to spin, starts with a flat surface. After a while, as the bucket continues to spin, the surface of the water becomes concave. If the bucket's spinning is stopped then the surface of the water remains concave as it continues to spin. The concave surface is therefore apparently not the result of relative motion between the bucket and the water.[10] Instead, Newton argued, it must be a result of non-inertial motion relative to space itself. For several centuries the bucket argument was considered decisive in showing that space must exist independently of matter.

Attached: 4.jpeg (800x640 97.09 KB, 8.52K)

You're completely wrong. You don't need pretentious words like "ontological" to express what is. You like words like that because they're a crutch. You could have just said "It feels dumb to try to apply biological features to ideas." Then everybody knows what you're talking about and there's no ambiguity whatsoever. There is, however, ambiguity with the word "ontological." You used a word which can mean "of or relating to essence or the nature of being" when all you were trying to say was "an idea or thing." Even now I'm still not sure what you were trying to say because of how cryptic and ambiguous the word is.

The word "promise" has more meaning than "to bind one's feet" because "to bind one's feet" is overly specific due to its use of too many words. It's for the same reason that we say "God" and not "Deified anthropomorphized personification of intelligence, existential meaning, perfection, and other attributes that are otherworldly but ultimately familiar in a relative sense to humanity." The former is a thing, the latter is you failing to describe that thing in a sensible way. You aren't making your expression of the concept better just because you're getting more detailed in how you describe it. As I said earlier, if you can't put something in plain English then it's because you don't know it well enough. A word like "ontological" is a construct created in order to simplify a philosophical concept for the purpose of efficiency. It creates more ambiguity and not less because its whole purpose is to encapsulate an area of thought. You reflexively used it as a substitute for a more simple word like "concept" or maybe "existential concept" (still no clue what you were trying to say) because you were afraid of simplicity. Simplicity is scary because you can more easily be contradicted if you're actually saying shit about shit. If you use an ambiguous, rarely used word like "ontological" then your meaning can revolve reflexively around that word. "O-Oh, I was actually using the THIRD definition of that word! Not the fourth one! I-I was actually framing that statement in the context of Socrates, i-idioot…" What motivated the usage of that overly complex phrase wasn't that it was the best way to express the concept, it was that it was the safest way.

Attached: atma.jpeg (1123x242 12.19 KB, 26.85K)

Attached: Wiccans.PNG (347x271 129.46 KB, 5.59K)

plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/

The Identity of Indiscernibles is a principle of analytic ontology first explicitly formulated by Wilhelm Gottfried Leibniz in his Discourse on Metaphysics, Section 9 (Loemker 1969: 308). It states that no two distinct things exactly resemble each other. This is often referred to as ‘Leibniz's Law’ and is typically understood to mean that no two objects have exactly the same properties. The Identity of Indiscernibles is of interest because it raises questions about the factors which individuate qualitatively identical objects. Recent work on the interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the principle fails in the quantum domain (see French 2006).

Attached: Indiscernibility and Identity.jpg (960x720, 97.42K)

Attached: The Magical World of Dr. Joseph Lisiewski.jpeg (300x464 1.06 MB, 30.64K)

Pssst, hey kid:

An ontology is the set of categories and concepts available to your mind - I don't know if I'm going to butcher this but: If you trained a computer to be able to tell the difference between a photo of a dog and a photo of a cat, you might show it a photo of a chair and it might come to the conclusion on balance that it is a dog.

That doesn't mean it is a dog.

What it means is that the computer has an inadequate "ontology". As far as the computer knows that chair is a dog - but it's only because it doesn't really have a reference frame for anything else. All it knows is cat OR dog.

I don't know if I've butchered that as I said but I hope that makes sense. So when I say an ontology that you might seek to reduce to "chaos" OR "order" - (i.e. the starting point to recognise an object or process is that it represents a discernible pattern) initially prior to that level of abstraction people might have used the conceptual isomorphism of metaphor or analogy through things like gender.

When I say something is a "red herring" for example I don't mean it is literally a "red herring" I just use it as a metaphor for "something which misleads you off the trail of something" because it's simpler to say "red herring". We bootstrap functional concepts we've encountered all the time a la Douglas Hofstader's Analogy as the Core of Cognition.

If you imagine human thought as starting with a smaller ontology based on our functional survival which then expands as civilisation gets more complex it then starts to develop a broader one. However at the start it would have bootstrapped more familiar concepts.

As I said - we wouldn't have imagined brains as operating like computers (whether or not they do) prior to the notion of computers as an artifact.

I dont know … can we user??? what do you have to add to the topic.

All you have is picture with a statement next to it … that has no argument.

Why is the dance between these truth? Why is that the only truth? What does this have to do with improving myself?

Simple question. If I agree with your image then how is my life improved? If I dont how is my life improved?

What about that image and those beliefs within will give me the ability to do something I could not do before?

You are wasting your life on nonsense user, get a job. Improve your bank account

Saved - thank you.

Checked, but I'm retired (saw BTC being used to escape capital controls out of China in August 2016) and had XRP and ETH before that - if only that admissions HR rep hadn't thought thought I wasn't talking gibberish when I was mentioning XRP and ETH in my 2015 magic circle applications eh?

The fact that it takes you an entire paragraph to explain what the word means is an indication that you overcomplicated things.

No, it's the opposite.

I use the word because it's simpler than a whole paragraph. But when someone says the word's meaningless you have to explain it.

Better would be if I didn't have to explain the word and people didn't complain about it being a word they don't understand. Why don't you go find some jews to blame for something mate, maybe that's your speed.

lol this

WTF - "anthropomorphising fundamental ontological categories of reality" doesn't mean that, at all. Your reading comprehension is seriously off. Ontology is a clearly defined technical term, based on Greek "ontos", "being", i.e. the study of being. Nothing ambiguous there at all. It's a basic philosophical term. A paraphrasing could be "making humanlike images based on the most basic constituting elements or principles of reality".

Completely incorrect. In fact, "ontology" as a term is much easier to define than "biology" and even "idea".

First, "concept" isn't a simpler term at all - whole books in classical and scholastic philosophy have been written about the definition and the ramifications of that, well, concept. Second, it is NOT, I repeat not a synonym of ontology - this is a serious error on your part. You are lucky we are having this conversation on a 'chan, at e.g. an university debate they would have laughed you from the stage. I know more or less what you"re getting at, but you chose a completely wrong target/example.

No, it doesn't mean that at all. "Ontology" is a technical term used in philosophy, based on the root "ontos", pertaining to the study of being itself. One of the three main branches of philosophy besides epistemology and ethics (some add aesthetics as the fourth big branch, as the ancients did).

Excellent, the real deal. Abrasive and doesn't tolerate stupidity, but really knows his stuff.

Attached: 1469423516360.jpg.png (250x238, 86.61K)

You mean a pasteurized, homogenous populace with no identity, no personality, no creativity, and where "individualism" is extremist wrong-think.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (800x500, 386.28K)

I live in the UK - telling the wrong joke here gets you blackbagged as a "terrorist", I can't criticise the Chinese.

Go the fuck away.