To a few philosophers, particularly the hardcore rationalists, Nietzsche's struggle for self-ownership as meaning was, in modern terms, a truckload of copium
I can see the argument for that. It kind of fits the narrative of ~~"slave morality"~~. Can I read these philosophers statements? I kind of want to know what they're about
Edit: completely misspoke. Don't know wtf I was talking about there
Esta entrada fue editada (domingo, 30 de agosto de 2026, 21:57)
Britt Hartley takes existentialists to the woodshed, pointing out that it's a fine philosophy if you're living a comfortable life, but if nothing means anything and your life sucks, might as well put a quarter in the suicide booth if existential philosophy is all you have.
Is that a refutation? I admit, when I consider how my distant ancestors and the majority of humans throughout history lived, I wonder why they chose to go on, and to create new generations who also lived lives like theirs, and the only answer I have is that they lacked perspective. Maybe a philosophy that teaches one to refuse a life without dignity is, in that context, correct philosophy.
Esta entrada fue editada (domingo, 30 de agosto de 2026, 23:30)
It's sort of paradox that a government that is actively looking to liquidate its excess population would put the kabosh on suicide, but I think it would. Cruelty and control.
Rust Cohle explains why pretty well I think. Instinct, it's burned into enough of us that the few who come to that conclusion don't have any effect. And I agree with his solution
The fact that, evolutionarily speaking, it's easier to find lifeforms that have a strong survival instinct than lifeforms that question or reject it can be explained with two main reasons. First, assuming that evolution is performed by random adaptations that are then tested by the environment to see if they survive and their wielders reproduce, a lifeform that prioritizes a single task is more statistically probable to develop first than one that performs complex analysis of the environment and then chooses a reaction. Which is to say, dogmatic behavior developed long before critical thinking was even possible, and by the time the latter appeared, the survival instinct was already well baked into the very structure of the brain. Second, beings that prioritize survival tend to live longer than those that end up questioning the survival instinct, as the latter die more often for obvious reasons.
Lots more community. Relationships and physical play (e.g. sports, theater, art, ritual, dance etc.) were the primary form of entertainment. Brains were capable of enduring in silence for 10 minutes without exploding in anxiety. Plant medicines were socially acceptable including "drugs".
Yeah there were diseases, famines, wars, etc. But these weren't constant threats, often regional until empire developed with (inter)continental trade.
People had joy and fulfillment, a bit of boredom, and many lacked effective contraceptives, so kids happened.
Existentialism is a response to essentialism though. It isn't that life has no meaning but that people can be free to choose the meaning and path of their lives. An acorn can only become an oak tree but a person is not born with their future path preordained. The idea is existence before essence instead of essence before existence.
An acorn can only become an oak tree but a person is not born with their future path preordained
modern people love thinking this but most people never move even 50 miles from where they were born and the single largest indictor of ‘success’ in life is your parents income
for example being born in gaza or ukraine right now is pretty damn bleak
if it were my choice to be born there or not, i’d pass
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 2:21)
You're both correct, but the underlying point is it's not guaranteed if you're a human in Ukraine vs an acorn in the forest. HUGE difference, and only a clown would pretend they're equivalent.
Yes, read Simone Beauvoir along with Sartre. Sartre is kind of a comically privileged white man. As you say people can be free to choose the path of their lives, but some more than others.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 14:06)
Just quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection:
Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said "Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he's much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way". Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you'll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all
Then, I REALLY like this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how "this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps" but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulatio
... Mostrar más
Just quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection:
Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said "Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he's much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way". Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you'll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all
Then, I REALLY like this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how "this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps" but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulation of the most intimate sphere of the person will completely achieve the fetishism of the commodity. And the sole revolt which will from here on be permitted to the Nietzschean by power, when an irreducible part of his disarmed consciousness has, through misunderstanding, fomented some insurrection, will be total annihilation, bestiality towards the other animal which his masters will have brought into the neighbouring cage.
I still need to finish it and get to the Marxist critique but thank you for this
Esta entrada fue editada (domingo, 30 de agosto de 2026, 22:09)
Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said “Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he’s much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way”.
Meh. If rigor were the path to the truth, wouldn't we have the found the One True Philosophy? At the end of the day, all that matters is if the philosophy vibes with you, which you can discover just as well from a comic book version of the philosophy as painstakingly deriving every point.
I think thinking you're using your rational mind to determine the capital-T Truth is delusional.
Yeah not so much that. It was kind of refreshing to read something where the author gives up on trying to preempt arguments against him early in the process of creating his work (exhausting, boring, and as time goes on inevitably futile).
I meant more that the prose is full of self-certain trueisms and has that superficiality to it. It doesn't discount his points to me either, I'm often a vibes person myself. But it offloads a lot of the cognitive work of basically finishing his philosophy onto you as you're reading it. I think that's probably the deeper cause of most other problems people have with his philosophy, like how bad actors took and used it for nefarious shit. But, he was a lonely guy in a lot of pain who took to writing to manage it so that's par for the course.
Ooh, I have some opinions about Christianity's potential to be used by bad actors. Honestly I feel pretty similar about it as I do Nietzsche but more like the architecture for doing evil has always been latent in the ideology for as long as it has existed sperate from Judaic and Gnostic faith.
I definitely would like to hear more about how exactly Broicism diverges from Stoicism though, if you have the time. You're the first person I've heard say that it's different.
The term "broicism" is implicitly a critique. I don't know much about the stoics, but I understand it has a bit more emotional complexity where as broicism is just machistic indifference repackaged. Here's one article: trillmag.com/culture/broicism-the-manospheres-obsession-with-stoicism/
I think all monotheisms are toxic; not sure how you think Christianity and Judaism are different, architecturally speaking. It just cracks me up that Jesus explicitly talks about all the ways religion is misused (Good Samaritan, Pharisees, etc.), he lays it out and black and white, and it just gets ignored. Not to mention how its used to support hierarchy when smashing hierarchy is absolutely in the text; but it's complicated because the appropriation of Jesus was well underway when the bible was decided on. I think if Jesus was able to self-publish his memoirs, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.
Sweeeet, I've been curious about this since my first assumption has always been that "Bros" just were doing Stoicism in its best possible interpretation. Maybe I'm too critical of it and not of them.
That's valid and a pretty widely agreed on belief. I tend to make a few more concessions for Hebrew and Catholicism because they have controls and political structures for negating barbarism built in to their scriptures, even if those controls have failed in both past and recent history.
The difference with Christianity from those is you're given leave by the text to engage selectively and do post-modern interpretations of what Jesus wants or the personal cost of not living up to his expectations. Like it's not that he's being ignored, it's that his sacrifice canceled any price I have to pay for my actions in this life. You're right, though. The person Christ was pretty different from the faith that inherited his name, they probably wouldn't have had much to do with eachother if he had a choice in the matter. But mainly because he was a Jew.
I'm not sure what concessions Catholicism has. It built itself into a major political player and was the spiritual foundation of the feudal system and king's right to rule... and this for over a thousand years.
The Catholic Church was aware there was stuff in the bible that wouldn't go in its favor, which is why they killed anyone who tried to translate it into a popular language... At the same time, all these priests and bishops and cardinals and popes COULD read it, and they consistently chose to support their own power. Very human, that, craving power above all else.
One defining weirdness of Christianity is the emphasis is puts on FAITH, on protestations of belief. I don't think even Judaism cares that much about it.
But the religious situation around Jesus' time was absolutely WILD. I'd start with The Life of Brian, but then read about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels (there are probably better books by now). There were cults springing up all over the place, each with their own vibe-coded stories that were ChatGPTd from prevailing culture. I think thinki
... Mostrar más
I'm not sure what concessions Catholicism has. It built itself into a major political player and was the spiritual foundation of the feudal system and king's right to rule... and this for over a thousand years.
The Catholic Church was aware there was stuff in the bible that wouldn't go in its favor, which is why they killed anyone who tried to translate it into a popular language... At the same time, all these priests and bishops and cardinals and popes COULD read it, and they consistently chose to support their own power. Very human, that, craving power above all else.
One defining weirdness of Christianity is the emphasis is puts on FAITH, on protestations of belief. I don't think even Judaism cares that much about it.
But the religious situation around Jesus' time was absolutely WILD. I'd start with The Life of Brian, but then read about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels (there are probably better books by now). There were cults springing up all over the place, each with their own vibe-coded stories that were ChatGPTd from prevailing culture. I think thinking of "Judaism" as an unitary religion/culture is a bit of anachronism.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 15:18)
Alright this is going to be a bit of an indulgent bpersonal diatribe, but hear me out. Generally when I'm assessing the worth of religion I try to look at the cost/benefit of it existing, not really whether it's factually true or politically just. Catholicism definitely full of lies and its atrocities are really the same as any monarchist structure and equally indefensible. Also as you say, craven.
But here's what people within it at the very bottom are getting from the deal: - an accountability system that puts physical personal cost on their choices - a working historical account getting built onto and preserved as time goes on - a system of quasi-electoral government that was a country at one time but now gets to act as a diplomatic power in the world
Just saying, those are the exact opposite of what Christianity takes from you as a person living within it
Agreed, though. That's kind of one of the things I appreciate about Judaism, the pluralism and the de-emphasis on Faith. I've been dipping my toes tentatively into some Gnostic histories, and pr
... Mostrar más
Alright this is going to be a bit of an indulgent bpersonal diatribe, but hear me out. Generally when I'm assessing the worth of religion I try to look at the cost/benefit of it existing, not really whether it's factually true or politically just. Catholicism definitely full of lies and its atrocities are really the same as any monarchist structure and equally indefensible. Also as you say, craven.
But here's what people within it at the very bottom are getting from the deal: - an accountability system that puts physical personal cost on their choices - a working historical account getting built onto and preserved as time goes on - a system of quasi-electoral government that was a country at one time but now gets to act as a diplomatic power in the world
Just saying, those are the exact opposite of what Christianity takes from you as a person living within it
Agreed, though. That's kind of one of the things I appreciate about Judaism, the pluralism and the de-emphasis on Faith. I've been dipping my toes tentatively into some Gnostic histories, and proto Christian stuff. I'll look at the Gnostic Gospels next, then. Do you have a personal favorite little blorbo from cults of that period?
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 15:41)
I thought I'd get a lot out of reading the Gnostic texts directly, but it was mostly the same religious garbage I've outgrown. One thing that really kills the vibe for me is when people take religion, you know, religiously. Seriously unreadable trash, chapter after chapter about how GREAT God is, as if greatness automatically made something worthy of worship. Servile horseshit.
I got a lot more out the prison planet subreddit, which is sort of gnosticism redux for people with obvious delusion and people like me, interested in the power of a radically different perspective.
It's really interesting that imagining the world as a place created as a prison to torture us IMMEDIATELY makes so much more sense than the tri-omni God of traditional Christiainity, but offering that as a possibility had to be heavily regulated at the edge of a sword.... makes you realize how much of religious debate is based on a very narrow range of choices. Pascal's Wager works in the popular imagination because the bedrock assumption is that there is only one God that exists and that we
... Mostrar más
I thought I'd get a lot out of reading the Gnostic texts directly, but it was mostly the same religious garbage I've outgrown. One thing that really kills the vibe for me is when people take religion, you know, religiously. Seriously unreadable trash, chapter after chapter about how GREAT God is, as if greatness automatically made something worthy of worship. Servile horseshit.
I got a lot more out the prison planet subreddit, which is sort of gnosticism redux for people with obvious delusion and people like me, interested in the power of a radically different perspective.
It's really interesting that imagining the world as a place created as a prison to torture us IMMEDIATELY makes so much more sense than the tri-omni God of traditional Christiainity, but offering that as a possibility had to be heavily regulated at the edge of a sword.... makes you realize how much of religious debate is based on a very narrow range of choices. Pascal's Wager works in the popular imagination because the bedrock assumption is that there is only one God that exists and that we are choosing to believe in the right one. When you consider infinite gods and infinite risks of choosing the wrong one, the wager falls apart.
Oh damn, this made me have to look up Pascal's Wager in order to follow and that is NOT what I thought it was. And it's not nearly as actionable as I was giving it credit for.
For sure, though. It's not like Gnostic thought is terribly useful in a modern context. It's just the joy of discovering old models of belief. Also they're colorful. I mostly wanted to know if you have any favorite characters from it because most people who engage with that or pre-Christian cults tend to find a funny little guy that they latch onto.
There's a couple people who I interacted with who have derived some personal viable uses from the Gnosticism, but it's kind of way too specific to recommend widely. One was definitely engaging with that "world as a torture device" lense and admitted that these kind of ways of thinking lend themselves pretty greatly to paranoid disorders.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 16:21)
Pascal's Wager was (edit: not) intended to be taken seriously, but it sort of took on a life of its own.
Yes, and Gnosticism is definitely cool; just saying reading the source texts is a pretty miserable experience. Better to Monster Manualize it, boil it down to critters and cosmology without the lard of worship.
And, yes, there were a lot of people attracted to world-as-torture-device, but it's interesting that can invalidate a philosophy when the countervailing philosophy of God Loves Us attracts a greater amount of disordered thinking.... This is an artifact of exactly what we're talking about--the need for people to avoid acknowledging existentially destabilizing realities. Check out The Last Messiah for more on that.
Back to Catholicism: it's a religion. All religions have psychological and social value, lest they would not exist. There's not any real point to rate and compare religions, because I believe they are simply the result of society and not its determiners.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 16:53)
Really? Maybe that's how I got my misconception of it. My favorite thing about this thread is I'm getting a lot of stuff to reexamine, so this ones moving to the top of the list.
Dude, that would be so sick! I really love Monster Manuals! One of the Gnostic thought people I talked to recently actually showed me a video that was showcasing the different deities in a similar way, but as Tumblr art characters. Very entertaining.
I hadn't considered that angle for our discussion here but that's true. The biggest damage any Faith-based theology is doing to incentivising people to decouple from tangible reality. I won't ever defend that, I just don't know of a way it's possible for anyone to widely convince people to stop doing it.
I'll consider that last part. That seems like an idea I'll have to examine for a bit. Thank you for engaging and for all the recommendations, Schipelblorp 🙂 Always a pleasure
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 16:50)
Did you read in the intended "not" into "Pascal's wager was intended to be taken seriously." ? Because I think it was an idle thought experiment that got taken up by Christians.
I have spent more time reading monster manuals than I ever have playing... it's mythological crack.
If you want more, the person that's pushed forward my thinking most recently is Britt Hartley of No Nonsense Spirituality on YouTube. She cheekily refers to herself as "your atheist spiritual director", but there's a lot of wisdom there. I think you'll appreciate her attempts to separate the baby from the bathwater, as you have with Catholicism here.
Ooh you know I actually didn't, I was just assuming he was being serious considering the non-secular time he existed in. But I didn't exactly think he was talking about the results being literal eternal suffering or paradise either. In my misconception I had thought he was proposing to live as a functional faith practitioner and just reap the tangible benefits of that when you're alive. So thanks for prompting me to actually look at it.
You already know I love youtube. I'll get to that first before the books but probably not before the further Wikipedia articles I got recommended in this thread. Is it cool if I message you any thoughts she stirs up? I definitely appreciate people who can identify pro-social and useful facets of problematic ideologies.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 21:33)
She's like a third-wave atheist, recognizing that hating women and muslims isn't a coherent philosophy to build a life around, that there's more to the human project than being technically correct actually.
The fact that I know about LessWrong because of Behind the Bastards should say a whole lot about how "moral" their "rationalism" really neither of those things and personally I feel like their thought predecessors would be pretty embarrassed by them
Yeah, rationalism has been twisted into individualism with a lot more steps. If they were truly rational (as in, considering our current knowledge of astrophysics and biology, the heat death of the universe and the origins of survival instinct), they would have probably ended up noticing that attempting to make things better for hypothetical future people is equally as worth(less) as making things better for the people of now - both are merely postponing the unavoidable.
The fun thing is that if the universe has no meaning then it has no meaning that it has no meaning so you might as well relax and be positive since that has many obvious benefits. Not that I'm a nihilist
Having kids (one of whom is special needs) plucked me out of the nihilism well that I was drowning in. I’m so thankful for them. Now, I don’t even have time to think or contemplate life. lol
If you accept that caring for the wellbeing of your kids is inherently meaningful then you must also accept there is meaning inherent in taking care of your own self :3
only while the kids exist as you forced them into existence
Many parents have the same realization about their adopted children. You could argue that both types of parents are delusional but the causality isn’t relevant
imagine you could see your entire life
The capacity for imagining your whole life presupposes that you have already begun living, silly :3 but okay. Why would this primordial spirit be interested in life at all if it’s optional? Is living your life inherently worth considering, or something?
Okay, so it is possible to find inherent meaning in lives you did not create. Yay!
For part 2, you’re ignoring my question.
Why would your thought experiment ghost even be considering life? Even before the point of knowing whether it would be “good or bad”. Why does it bother checking that at all?
Put another way: when some dumb loser asks if I want to invest in an NFT, I don’t even need to consider that. I know inherently that what I’m being offered is fundamentally without value to anyone.
The fact that you are evaluating your life at all in your thought experiment implies that the thing you are being offered has the potential to be valuable, yes?
Okay, so it is possible to find inherent meaning in lives you did not create. Yay!
except predication of choice makes it literally not inherent
neither does potential imply inherent either
it’s trivial to imagine simple real world examples that would make any positive aspect of living rather insufficient to the point where dying young and unexpectedly is almost a blessing among alternatives
if aggressive cancer, long lasting stroke or alzheimer's is in my future let me die sooner in my sleep
to say nothing of famine, massive drought and war
if i knew i’d live to experience alzheimer’s let me never be born
except predication of choice makes it literally not inherent
Things aren’t any less meaningful just because you chose them. For example I’ve been playing the same guitar for over 20 years. That instrument is now inherently meaningful to me in a way that others are not. It’s inherently irreplaceable to me. You’ll find most musicians bond with their instrument in a similar way
neither does potential imply inherent either
Of course it does. Every time a guitar is destroyed on stage thousands of discussions break out about how upsetting and wasteful it is. How it could have been so meaningful to a child who wants to play but doesn’t have the means.
We see these things and we want to connect them with the people who their meaning will most benefit, precisely because they are inherently meaningful.
big list of horrible things
The question of whether or not you will experience extreme suffering is not relevant to the meaning your li
... Mostrar más
except predication of choice makes it literally not inherent
Things aren’t any less meaningful just because you chose them. For example I’ve been playing the same guitar for over 20 years. That instrument is now inherently meaningful to me in a way that others are not. It’s inherently irreplaceable to me. You’ll find most musicians bond with their instrument in a similar way
neither does potential imply inherent either
Of course it does. Every time a guitar is destroyed on stage thousands of discussions break out about how upsetting and wasteful it is. How it could have been so meaningful to a child who wants to play but doesn’t have the means.
We see these things and we want to connect them with the people who their meaning will most benefit, precisely because they are inherently meaningful.
big list of horrible things
The question of whether or not you will experience extreme suffering is not relevant to the meaning your life possesses. The 5,000 people who were just swept away in Nepal have not had their lives rendered meaningless, regardless of whether or not they would have chosen not to be born if they knew that would be their fate
I love this. And this is precisely what I started doing. In my mind, the better I am the better they are, and that’s proven to be true. They’re everything in my world and I’m so freaking happy I decided to have kids, genuinely. My son is 13, and he’s entering that phase of “I’m a good dude and can be so much fun”. He and I are like best friends. We do almost everything together. He’s like the little brother I never had.
That’s awesome, I’m so glad to hear it! And beyond just your own family, people you may never directly hear from might see your perspective here and have their lives improved in turn, in whatever small way. There’s a certain momentum to it that we can all contribute to
I'm sure they'll be grateful for their chance to pick between being a soldier in the Water Wars, or maybe getting lucky enough to find a human job that pays in food and living accommodations.
Sorry to be that nihilist but I am so grateful for finding a partner that agrees that reproduction is wildly irresponsible to both the world, and that future being who you KNOW and cannot deny that existence will likely be worse for in basically the first time in human existence outside of the world wars and the Black Death.
If I were forced to switch places with a child today I would be pretty upset about the future I had been subject too. But they're just so cute right? And all my friends are having them too!
Could you maybe put some effort into your response, explaining why you so strongly disagree with an opinion I've developed over a pretty long time? Because you're the one that looks childish responding so emotionally
Right! I'm glad to see someone thinking critically about what hedonism to fundamentslly means, rather than relying on the more pejorative usage of the term.
I realised once that, even tho I was a drug free tee totaller who didn't party or have sex much, I was still a hedonistic at that time because I played videogames as much as possible.
In the text it means any choice you make that sacrifices long term benefits for instant gratification. Nietzsche was way into promoting things that give you pleasure, just not at the cost of your health and prosperity
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 14:46)
Unironically, yes maybe. If it is seen as avoiding your responsibilities, and doesn't contribute to some area of society (but rather sees-to the "worship" of you yourself) then it is hedonistic
Edit: other guy said it better than me
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 21:37)
Nietzsche was explicitly, spitefully against asceticism. On the Genealogy of Morals is largely about how church clerics valorized ascetic lifestyle in order to trick the public into always believing they are not doing good, when actually the church has explicitly created two moralities because the rich, powerful, and aristocratic were not expected to (and Nietzsche was not in favor of) living ascetic lives.
The whole point of this meme is that Nietzsche was a life-affirming philosopher. He absolutely did not advocate for an ascetic lifestyle because he believed the joy was the highest pursuit of human life.
Now, if you find this contradictory, well Nietzsche is an extremely contrary and frustrating writer. His writing is beautiful and prosaic, but he's endlessly skeptical In one line he is saying something so profound and affirming, and the next line ascerbic and devastating. He flatters you, makes an airtight case for the flattery, then rips it to shreds; then he rips that to shreds and he is back to flattery. I'm sort of unconvinced that he even is a philoso
... Mostrar más
Nietzsche was explicitly, spitefully against asceticism. On the Genealogy of Morals is largely about how church clerics valorized ascetic lifestyle in order to trick the public into always believing they are not doing good, when actually the church has explicitly created two moralities because the rich, powerful, and aristocratic were not expected to (and Nietzsche was not in favor of) living ascetic lives.
The whole point of this meme is that Nietzsche was a life-affirming philosopher. He absolutely did not advocate for an ascetic lifestyle because he believed the joy was the highest pursuit of human life.
Now, if you find this contradictory, well Nietzsche is an extremely contrary and frustrating writer. His writing is beautiful and prosaic, but he's endlessly skeptical In one line he is saying something so profound and affirming, and the next line ascerbic and devastating. He flatters you, makes an airtight case for the flattery, then rips it to shreds; then he rips that to shreds and he is back to flattery. I'm sort of unconvinced that he even is a philosopher, but I love his writing and prose.
The short version is that Machiavelli is a rather profound Stoic philosopher, but everyone misses that in a lot of his work he is being slightly sarcastic to throw the "powers that be" off the scent that he was criticizing them. When you hear how he suggests that "Princes should be feared rather than respected." he actually calling out the despots of his day. It's kind of how Stephen Colbert portrayed a right wing pundit on "The Colbert Report" as a way of satirizing right-wing pundits.
Oh, okay. Well with that summary I'm at least interested in reading more and trying to see if I can parse the satire. Thanks for pointing me in that direction
Edit: Jesus this is like way obvious after you read how his career in state politics ended. But we named a dark triad psychological trait after him. That's so dirty
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 1:12)
Sweet. Reading Wikipedia has got me a little unsure on how to interpret him. I'll check that out next. Stoicism is kind of a personal bugbear of mine but now regardless I really want to know the truth of this guy
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 1:19)
Some author I read said that nihilism can only be temporary and then natural evolution will be towards stoicism/pragmatism. Later she argued that pragmatism isn't so awesome either, but no concrete arguments were put forward. Quiet pragmatic
I always found his frantic fear of nihilism to be a little adolescent, like "how could humanity possibly survive the death of God? How will we live a life without inherent existential or moral purpose?" You just do, Freddy.
Esta entrada fue editada (lunes, 31 de agosto de 2026, 11:18)
my take on life is that yeah it doesn’t have inherent meaning, but you don’t need a meaning for everything you do. you can just enjoy being alive despite the meaninglessness, it actually gives you a lot of freedom to do whatever you want to do for the sake of it.
for the morals: just don’t bring in needless suffering, nobody choose to be here and nobody wants to suffer, the only thing we can do is to make the existing lives better
There is a quote from Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits that I think of every time this comes up.
“You can lie to yourself, say that you never had a choice, that you weren’t cut out for this. But deep down you’ll know. You’ll know that humans aren’t cut out for anything. We cut ourselves out. Slowly, with a rusty knife. Because otherwise, here’s what’s going to happen: you’re going to die and you’re going to stand at the gates of judgment and you’re going to ask God what was the meaning of it all, and God will say, ‘I created the universe, you little shit. It was up to you to give it meaning.’”
“You really think God uses that kind of language?”
There's a whole superstructure to religion - culture, ethics, public infrastructure, social networks, financial networks, a common history and language - that you need to supplement as you dispose of the older system.
What the European socialists discovered at the turn of the 20th century was that you can't just burn down all the churches and start over from scratch. Anarchism without some new common social foundation just ends in civil war and foreign occupation.
Subsequent generations still need a scaffolding to cling to as they mature. And if that scaffold isn't rooted in some new existential or moral foundation (or if it's rooted in a rotten one) you end up with ultra-nationalism, or Victorian mysticism, or whatever paint Ayn Rand was huffing.
And yet in almost every one of those examples the problem was people sticking to the existing religions and culture being too terrified to let go or incapable of accepting that others have moved on.
Not mine. Monty Python "The Bruce's Philosophy Song".
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant Who was very rarely stable Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy little beggar Who could think you under the table David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel And Wittgenstein was a beery swine Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'Bout the raising of the wrist Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed John Stuart Mill, of his own free will On half a pint of brandy was particularly ill Plato, they say, could stick it away Half a crate of whiskey every day Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle Hobbes was fond of his dram And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart "I drink, therefore I am" Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
If you have an interest in philosophy or Nietzsche, Rick Roderick is one of my favorite, and most charmingly relatable commentators. He has a whole series on Nietzsche which is very good. But he covers Nietzsche in the first episode in his "Self Under Siege" philosophy series
Carlos Solís
in reply to sad_detective_man • •Greentext reshared this.
sad_detective_man
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •I can see the argument for that. It kind of fits the narrative of ~~"slave morality"~~. Can I read these philosophers statements? I kind of want to know what they're about
Edit: completely misspoke. Don't know wtf I was talking about there
like this
SolacefromSilence y bacon saber like this.
Carlos Solís
in reply to sad_detective_man • •On the rationalist hub per excellence, LessWrong: lesswrong.com/posts/NxYgL5nPMTKZNGwDS/lesswrong-opinion-of-nietzsche
Criticism of Nietzsche has been out there for a good while. Bertrand Russell, for example, wasn't a fan of Nietzsche, calling his ideology "an appeal to the emotions": reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/comments/1f5upw3/what_do_you_think_of_bertrand_russells_comment_on/
Calling Nietzsche's philosophy "irrationalist" is still a common trend: monthlyreview.org/articles/on-the-misery-of-left-nietzscheanism-or-philosophy-as-irrationalist-ideol…
Even Marxists hammer on Nietzsche's hardcore individualism: queer-bolshevik.medium.com/a-critique-of-nietzsche-and-nietzschean-ideology-d0e5cdc003c8
Greentext reshared this.
sad_detective_man
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •Carlos Solís likes this.
schipelblorp
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •ArbitraryValue
in reply to schipelblorp • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
baines
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •when the world starts to really collapse in a few years we wont have to wonder
people will be rationally offing themselves left and right
governments response will be to make suicide extra illegal lol
schipelblorp
in reply to baines • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
JoeBigelow
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
Carlos Solís
in reply to JoeBigelow • •Greentext reshared this.
Antares
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •Lots more community. Relationships and physical play (e.g. sports, theater, art, ritual, dance etc.) were the primary form of entertainment. Brains were capable of enduring in silence for 10 minutes without exploding in anxiety. Plant medicines were socially acceptable including "drugs".
Yeah there were diseases, famines, wars, etc. But these weren't constant threats, often regional until empire developed with (inter)continental trade.
People had joy and fulfillment, a bit of boredom, and many lacked effective contraceptives, so kids happened.
schipelblorp
in reply to ArbitraryValue • • •Correct, but maladaptive and evolutionarily unfit...
If you want to be entertained, you can watch True Detective Season 1. Someone brought up Rust, already.
If you want to ruin your life in ten pages, the source is The Last Messiah by Zapffe.
WhiteOakBayou
in reply to schipelblorp • • •baines
in reply to WhiteOakBayou • • •modern people love thinking this but most people never move even 50 miles from where they were born and the single largest indictor of ‘success’ in life is your parents income
for example being born in gaza or ukraine right now is pretty damn bleak
if it were my choice to be born there or not, i’d pass
like this
Azathoth likes this.
spankysalmon
in reply to baines • • •baines
in reply to spankysalmon • • •who’d actually choose to roll the dice?
there is nothing glorious about suffering and the human condition being what it is means very few will end with a charmed life
vastly more of existence has been and will be without me existing, I think i’d been fine skipping it entirely
schipelblorp
in reply to WhiteOakBayou • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •Just quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection:
Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said "Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he's much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way". Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you'll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all
Then, I REALLY like this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how "this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps" but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulatio
... Mostrar másJust quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection:
Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said "Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he's much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way". Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you'll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all
Then, I REALLY like this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how "this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps" but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulation of the most intimate sphere of the person will completely achieve the fetishism of the commodity. And the sole revolt which will from here on be permitted to the Nietzschean by power, when an irreducible part of his disarmed consciousness has, through misunderstanding, fomented some insurrection, will be total annihilation, bestiality towards the other animal which his masters will have brought into the neighbouring cage.
I still need to finish it and get to the Marxist critique but thank you for this
like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Meh. If rigor were the path to the truth, wouldn't we have the found the One True Philosophy? At the end of the day, all that matters is if the philosophy vibes with you, which you can discover just as well from a comic book version of the philosophy as painstakingly deriving every point.
I think thinking you're using your rational mind to determine the capital-T Truth is delusional.
sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Yeah not so much that. It was kind of refreshing to read something where the author gives up on trying to preempt arguments against him early in the process of creating his work (exhausting, boring, and as time goes on inevitably futile).
I meant more that the prose is full of self-certain trueisms and has that superficiality to it. It doesn't discount his points to me either, I'm often a vibes person myself. But it offloads a lot of the cognitive work of basically finishing his philosophy onto you as you're reading it. I think that's probably the deeper cause of most other problems people have with his philosophy, like how bad actors took and used it for nefarious shit. But, he was a lonely guy in a lot of pain who took to writing to manage it so that's par for the course.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Ooh, I have some opinions about Christianity's potential to be used by bad actors. Honestly I feel pretty similar about it as I do Nietzsche but more like the architecture for doing evil has always been latent in the ideology for as long as it has existed sperate from Judaic and Gnostic faith.
I definitely would like to hear more about how exactly Broicism diverges from Stoicism though, if you have the time. You're the first person I've heard say that it's different.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •The term "broicism" is implicitly a critique. I don't know much about the stoics, but I understand it has a bit more emotional complexity where as broicism is just machistic indifference repackaged. Here's one article: trillmag.com/culture/broicism-the-manospheres-obsession-with-stoicism/
I think all monotheisms are toxic; not sure how you think Christianity and Judaism are different, architecturally speaking. It just cracks me up that Jesus explicitly talks about all the ways religion is misused (Good Samaritan, Pharisees, etc.), he lays it out and black and white, and it just gets ignored. Not to mention how its used to support hierarchy when smashing hierarchy is absolutely in the text; but it's complicated because the appropriation of Jesus was well underway when the bible was decided on. I think if Jesus was able to self-publish his memoirs, Christianity would never have gotten off the ground.
Broicism: The Manosphere’s Obsession With Stoicism
Savun Barnes (Trill)sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Sweeeet, I've been curious about this since my first assumption has always been that "Bros" just were doing Stoicism in its best possible interpretation. Maybe I'm too critical of it and not of them.
That's valid and a pretty widely agreed on belief. I tend to make a few more concessions for Hebrew and Catholicism because they have controls and political structures for negating barbarism built in to their scriptures, even if those controls have failed in both past and recent history.
The difference with Christianity from those is you're given leave by the text to engage selectively and do post-modern interpretations of what Jesus wants or the personal cost of not living up to his expectations. Like it's not that he's being ignored, it's that his sacrifice canceled any price I have to pay for my actions in this life. You're right, though. The person Christ was pretty different from the faith that inherited his name, they probably wouldn't have had much to do with eachother if he had a choice in the matter. But mainly because he was a Jew.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •I'm not sure what concessions Catholicism has. It built itself into a major political player and was the spiritual foundation of the feudal system and king's right to rule... and this for over a thousand years.
The Catholic Church was aware there was stuff in the bible that wouldn't go in its favor, which is why they killed anyone who tried to translate it into a popular language... At the same time, all these priests and bishops and cardinals and popes COULD read it, and they consistently chose to support their own power. Very human, that, craving power above all else.
One defining weirdness of Christianity is the emphasis is puts on FAITH, on protestations of belief. I don't think even Judaism cares that much about it.
But the religious situation around Jesus' time was absolutely WILD. I'd start with The Life of Brian, but then read about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels (there are probably better books by now). There were cults springing up all over the place, each with their own vibe-coded stories that were ChatGPTd from prevailing culture. I think thinki
... Mostrar másI'm not sure what concessions Catholicism has. It built itself into a major political player and was the spiritual foundation of the feudal system and king's right to rule... and this for over a thousand years.
The Catholic Church was aware there was stuff in the bible that wouldn't go in its favor, which is why they killed anyone who tried to translate it into a popular language... At the same time, all these priests and bishops and cardinals and popes COULD read it, and they consistently chose to support their own power. Very human, that, craving power above all else.
One defining weirdness of Christianity is the emphasis is puts on FAITH, on protestations of belief. I don't think even Judaism cares that much about it.
But the religious situation around Jesus' time was absolutely WILD. I'd start with The Life of Brian, but then read about the Gnostic Gospels by Elaine Pagels (there are probably better books by now). There were cults springing up all over the place, each with their own vibe-coded stories that were ChatGPTd from prevailing culture. I think thinking of "Judaism" as an unitary religion/culture is a bit of anachronism.
sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Alright this is going to be a bit of an indulgent bpersonal diatribe, but hear me out. Generally when I'm assessing the worth of religion I try to look at the cost/benefit of it existing, not really whether it's factually true or politically just. Catholicism definitely full of lies and its atrocities are really the same as any monarchist structure and equally indefensible. Also as you say, craven.
But here's what people within it at the very bottom are getting from the deal:
- an accountability system that puts physical personal cost on their choices
- a working historical account getting built onto and preserved as time goes on
- a system of quasi-electoral government that was a country at one time but now gets to act as a diplomatic power in the world
Just saying, those are the exact opposite of what Christianity takes from you as a person living within it
Agreed, though. That's kind of one of the things I appreciate about Judaism, the pluralism and the de-emphasis on Faith. I've been dipping my toes tentatively into some Gnostic histories, and pr
... Mostrar másAlright this is going to be a bit of an indulgent bpersonal diatribe, but hear me out. Generally when I'm assessing the worth of religion I try to look at the cost/benefit of it existing, not really whether it's factually true or politically just. Catholicism definitely full of lies and its atrocities are really the same as any monarchist structure and equally indefensible. Also as you say, craven.
But here's what people within it at the very bottom are getting from the deal:
- an accountability system that puts physical personal cost on their choices
- a working historical account getting built onto and preserved as time goes on
- a system of quasi-electoral government that was a country at one time but now gets to act as a diplomatic power in the world
Just saying, those are the exact opposite of what Christianity takes from you as a person living within it
Agreed, though. That's kind of one of the things I appreciate about Judaism, the pluralism and the de-emphasis on Faith. I've been dipping my toes tentatively into some Gnostic histories, and proto Christian stuff. I'll look at the Gnostic Gospels next, then. Do you have a personal favorite little blorbo from cults of that period?
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •I thought I'd get a lot out of reading the Gnostic texts directly, but it was mostly the same religious garbage I've outgrown. One thing that really kills the vibe for me is when people take religion, you know, religiously. Seriously unreadable trash, chapter after chapter about how GREAT God is, as if greatness automatically made something worthy of worship. Servile horseshit.
I got a lot more out the prison planet subreddit, which is sort of gnosticism redux for people with obvious delusion and people like me, interested in the power of a radically different perspective.
It's really interesting that imagining the world as a place created as a prison to torture us IMMEDIATELY makes so much more sense than the tri-omni God of traditional Christiainity, but offering that as a possibility had to be heavily regulated at the edge of a sword.... makes you realize how much of religious debate is based on a very narrow range of choices. Pascal's Wager works in the popular imagination because the bedrock assumption is that there is only one God that exists and that we
... Mostrar másI thought I'd get a lot out of reading the Gnostic texts directly, but it was mostly the same religious garbage I've outgrown. One thing that really kills the vibe for me is when people take religion, you know, religiously. Seriously unreadable trash, chapter after chapter about how GREAT God is, as if greatness automatically made something worthy of worship. Servile horseshit.
I got a lot more out the prison planet subreddit, which is sort of gnosticism redux for people with obvious delusion and people like me, interested in the power of a radically different perspective.
It's really interesting that imagining the world as a place created as a prison to torture us IMMEDIATELY makes so much more sense than the tri-omni God of traditional Christiainity, but offering that as a possibility had to be heavily regulated at the edge of a sword.... makes you realize how much of religious debate is based on a very narrow range of choices. Pascal's Wager works in the popular imagination because the bedrock assumption is that there is only one God that exists and that we are choosing to believe in the right one. When you consider infinite gods and infinite risks of choosing the wrong one, the wager falls apart.
sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Oh damn, this made me have to look up Pascal's Wager in order to follow and that is NOT what I thought it was. And it's not nearly as actionable as I was giving it credit for.
For sure, though. It's not like Gnostic thought is terribly useful in a modern context. It's just the joy of discovering old models of belief. Also they're colorful. I mostly wanted to know if you have any favorite characters from it because most people who engage with that or pre-Christian cults tend to find a funny little guy that they latch onto.
There's a couple people who I interacted with who have derived some personal viable uses from the Gnosticism, but it's kind of way too specific to recommend widely. One was definitely engaging with that "world as a torture device" lense and admitted that these kind of ways of thinking lend themselves pretty greatly to paranoid disorders.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Pascal's Wager was (edit: not) intended to be taken seriously, but it sort of took on a life of its own.
Yes, and Gnosticism is definitely cool; just saying reading the source texts is a pretty miserable experience. Better to Monster Manualize it, boil it down to critters and cosmology without the lard of worship.
And, yes, there were a lot of people attracted to world-as-torture-device, but it's interesting that can invalidate a philosophy when the countervailing philosophy of God Loves Us attracts a greater amount of disordered thinking.... This is an artifact of exactly what we're talking about--the need for people to avoid acknowledging existentially destabilizing realities. Check out The Last Messiah for more on that.
Back to Catholicism: it's a religion. All religions have psychological and social value, lest they would not exist. There's not any real point to rate and compare religions, because I believe they are simply the result of society and not its determiners.
sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Really? Maybe that's how I got my misconception of it. My favorite thing about this thread is I'm getting a lot of stuff to reexamine, so this ones moving to the top of the list.
Dude, that would be so sick! I really love Monster Manuals! One of the Gnostic thought people I talked to recently actually showed me a video that was showcasing the different deities in a similar way, but as Tumblr art characters. Very entertaining.
I hadn't considered that angle for our discussion here but that's true. The biggest damage any Faith-based theology is doing to incentivising people to decouple from tangible reality. I won't ever defend that, I just don't know of a way it's possible for anyone to widely convince people to stop doing it.
I'll consider that last part. That seems like an idea I'll have to examine for a bit. Thank you for engaging and for all the recommendations, Schipelblorp 🙂 Always a pleasure
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Did you read in the intended "not" into "Pascal's wager was intended to be taken seriously." ? Because I think it was an idle thought experiment that got taken up by Christians.
I have spent more time reading monster manuals than I ever have playing... it's mythological crack.
If you want more, the person that's pushed forward my thinking most recently is Britt Hartley of No Nonsense Spirituality on YouTube. She cheekily refers to herself as "your atheist spiritual director", but there's a lot of wisdom there. I think you'll appreciate her attempts to separate the baby from the bathwater, as you have with Catholicism here.
sad_detective_man
in reply to schipelblorp • • •Ooh you know I actually didn't, I was just assuming he was being serious considering the non-secular time he existed in. But I didn't exactly think he was talking about the results being literal eternal suffering or paradise either. In my misconception I had thought he was proposing to live as a functional faith practitioner and just reap the tangible benefits of that when you're alive. So thanks for prompting me to actually look at it.
You already know I love youtube. I'll get to that first before the books but probably not before the further Wikipedia articles I got recommended in this thread. Is it cool if I message you any thoughts she stirs up? I definitely appreciate people who can identify pro-social and useful facets of problematic ideologies.
schipelblorp
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Sure! Love to hear your thoughts.
She's like a third-wave atheist, recognizing that hating women and muslims isn't a coherent philosophy to build a life around, that there's more to the human project than being technically correct actually.
JoeBigelow
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
Carlos Solís
in reply to JoeBigelow • •Greentext reshared this.
degen
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •Lung
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
flandish
in reply to Carlos Solís • • •like this
Carlos Solís likes this.
DonutsRMeh
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Carnelian
in reply to DonutsRMeh • • •baines
in reply to Carnelian • • •only while the kids exist as you forced them into existence thereby incurring the responsibility
for a thought experiment, imagine you could see your entire life and decide to be born or not based in your mind at the point of death
what would be the point of living a ‘bad’ life?
JoeBigelow
in reply to baines • • •Carnelian
in reply to baines • • •Many parents have the same realization about their adopted children. You could argue that both types of parents are delusional but the causality isn’t relevant
The capacity for imagining your whole life presupposes that you have already begun living, silly :3 but okay. Why would this primordial spirit be interested in life at all if it’s optional? Is living your life inherently worth considering, or something?
baines
in reply to Carnelian • • •choosing to take on the responsibility is the same imo
biological kid or not once you bring it home it’s then the same, feeling this for random strangers would be odd
acknowledging that a optional life would be skipped kinda is my point
Carnelian
in reply to baines • • •Okay, so it is possible to find inherent meaning in lives you did not create. Yay!
For part 2, you’re ignoring my question.
Why would your thought experiment ghost even be considering life? Even before the point of knowing whether it would be “good or bad”. Why does it bother checking that at all?
Put another way: when some dumb loser asks if I want to invest in an NFT, I don’t even need to consider that. I know inherently that what I’m being offered is fundamentally without value to anyone.
The fact that you are evaluating your life at all in your thought experiment implies that the thing you are being offered has the potential to be valuable, yes?
baines
in reply to Carnelian • • •except predication of choice makes it literally not inherent
neither does potential imply inherent either
it’s trivial to imagine simple real world examples that would make any positive aspect of living rather insufficient to the point where dying young and unexpectedly is almost a blessing among alternatives
if aggressive cancer, long lasting stroke or alzheimer's is in my future let me die sooner in my sleep
to say nothing of famine, massive drought and war
if i knew i’d live to experience alzheimer’s let me never be born
Carnelian
in reply to baines • • •Things aren’t any less meaningful just because you chose them. For example I’ve been playing the same guitar for over 20 years. That instrument is now inherently meaningful to me in a way that others are not. It’s inherently irreplaceable to me. You’ll find most musicians bond with their instrument in a similar way
Of course it does. Every time a guitar is destroyed on stage thousands of discussions break out about how upsetting and wasteful it is. How it could have been so meaningful to a child who wants to play but doesn’t have the means.
We see these things and we want to connect them with the people who their meaning will most benefit, precisely because they are inherently meaningful.
... Mostrar másThe question of whether or not you will experience extreme suffering is not relevant to the meaning your li
Things aren’t any less meaningful just because you chose them. For example I’ve been playing the same guitar for over 20 years. That instrument is now inherently meaningful to me in a way that others are not. It’s inherently irreplaceable to me. You’ll find most musicians bond with their instrument in a similar way
Of course it does. Every time a guitar is destroyed on stage thousands of discussions break out about how upsetting and wasteful it is. How it could have been so meaningful to a child who wants to play but doesn’t have the means.
We see these things and we want to connect them with the people who their meaning will most benefit, precisely because they are inherently meaningful.
The question of whether or not you will experience extreme suffering is not relevant to the meaning your life possesses. The 5,000 people who were just swept away in Nepal have not had their lives rendered meaningless, regardless of whether or not they would have chosen not to be born if they knew that would be their fate
DonutsRMeh
in reply to Carnelian • • •Carnelian
in reply to DonutsRMeh • • •JoeBigelow
in reply to DonutsRMeh • • •I'm sure they'll be grateful for their chance to pick between being a soldier in the Water Wars, or maybe getting lucky enough to find a human job that pays in food and living accommodations.
Sorry to be that nihilist but I am so grateful for finding a partner that agrees that reproduction is wildly irresponsible to both the world, and that future being who you KNOW and cannot deny that existence will likely be worse for in basically the first time in human existence outside of the world wars and the Black Death.
If I were forced to switch places with a child today I would be pretty upset about the future I had been subject too. But they're just so cute right? And all my friends are having them too!
Downvote away!
Ibuthyr
in reply to JoeBigelow • • •JoeBigelow
in reply to Ibuthyr • • •JoeBigelow
in reply to Ibuthyr • • •DonutsRMeh
in reply to JoeBigelow • • •prole
in reply to DonutsRMeh • • •Nihilists can have, and love and care for, children.
It's all about making your own meaning, and I imagine having kids is one way a lot of people do that.
DonutsRMeh
in reply to prole • • •wrinkle2409
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •As if a life embedded in asceticism was supposed to be any more meaningful
FavouriteShapes
in reply to wrinkle2409 • • •Right! I'm glad to see someone thinking critically about what hedonism to fundamentslly means, rather than relying on the more pejorative usage of the term.
I realised once that, even tho I was a drug free tee totaller who didn't party or have sex much, I was still a hedonistic at that time because I played videogames as much as possible.
cantstopthesignal
in reply to FavouriteShapes • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to cantstopthesignal • • •FavouriteShapes
in reply to cantstopthesignal • • •Unironically, yes maybe. If it is seen as avoiding your responsibilities, and doesn't contribute to some area of society (but rather sees-to the "worship" of you yourself) then it is hedonistic
Edit: other guy said it better than me
Juice
in reply to wrinkle2409 • • •Nietzsche was explicitly, spitefully against asceticism. On the Genealogy of Morals is largely about how church clerics valorized ascetic lifestyle in order to trick the public into always believing they are not doing good, when actually the church has explicitly created two moralities because the rich, powerful, and aristocratic were not expected to (and Nietzsche was not in favor of) living ascetic lives.
The whole point of this meme is that Nietzsche was a life-affirming philosopher. He absolutely did not advocate for an ascetic lifestyle because he believed the joy was the highest pursuit of human life.
Now, if you find this contradictory, well Nietzsche is an extremely contrary and frustrating writer. His writing is beautiful and prosaic, but he's endlessly skeptical In one line he is saying something so profound and affirming, and the next line ascerbic and devastating. He flatters you, makes an airtight case for the flattery, then rips it to shreds; then he rips that to shreds and he is back to flattery. I'm sort of unconvinced that he even is a philoso
... Mostrar másNietzsche was explicitly, spitefully against asceticism. On the Genealogy of Morals is largely about how church clerics valorized ascetic lifestyle in order to trick the public into always believing they are not doing good, when actually the church has explicitly created two moralities because the rich, powerful, and aristocratic were not expected to (and Nietzsche was not in favor of) living ascetic lives.
The whole point of this meme is that Nietzsche was a life-affirming philosopher. He absolutely did not advocate for an ascetic lifestyle because he believed the joy was the highest pursuit of human life.
Now, if you find this contradictory, well Nietzsche is an extremely contrary and frustrating writer. His writing is beautiful and prosaic, but he's endlessly skeptical In one line he is saying something so profound and affirming, and the next line ascerbic and devastating. He flatters you, makes an airtight case for the flattery, then rips it to shreds; then he rips that to shreds and he is back to flattery. I'm sort of unconvinced that he even is a philosopher, but I love his writing and prose.
Leviathan
in reply to wrinkle2409 • • •mortemtyrannis
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Archimedes
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •like this
classic likes this.
TheStaffmaster
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •like this
classic likes this.
sad_detective_man
in reply to TheStaffmaster • • •TheStaffmaster
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •like this
Azathoth likes this.
sad_detective_man
in reply to TheStaffmaster • • •Oh, okay. Well with that summary I'm at least interested in reading more and trying to see if I can parse the satire. Thanks for pointing me in that direction
Edit: Jesus this is like way obvious after you read how his career in state politics ended. But we named a dark triad psychological trait after him. That's so dirty
TheStaffmaster
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to TheStaffmaster • • •Vegafjord - demcon
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to Vegafjord - demcon • • •majster
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •prole
in reply to majster • • •Leviathan
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •cantstopthesignal
in reply to Leviathan • • •jangyik
in reply to Leviathan • • •my take on life is that yeah it doesn’t have inherent meaning, but you don’t need a meaning for everything you do. you can just enjoy being alive despite the meaninglessness, it actually gives you a lot of freedom to do whatever you want to do for the sake of it.
for the morals: just don’t bring in needless suffering, nobody choose to be here and nobody wants to suffer, the only thing we can do is to make the existing lives better
NotASharkInAManSuit
in reply to Leviathan • • •There is a quote from Futuristic Violence and Fancy Suits that I think of every time this comes up.
“You can lie to yourself, say that you never had a choice, that you weren’t cut out for this. But deep down you’ll know. You’ll know that humans aren’t cut out for anything. We cut ourselves out. Slowly, with a rusty knife. Because otherwise, here’s what’s going to happen: you’re going to die and you’re going to stand at the gates of judgment and you’re going to ask God what was the meaning of it all, and God will say, ‘I created the universe, you little shit. It was up to you to give it meaning.’”
“You really think God uses that kind of language?”
“Yes.”
UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Leviathan • • •A lot of people don't.
There's a whole superstructure to religion - culture, ethics, public infrastructure, social networks, financial networks, a common history and language - that you need to supplement as you dispose of the older system.
What the European socialists discovered at the turn of the 20th century was that you can't just burn down all the churches and start over from scratch. Anarchism without some new common social foundation just ends in civil war and foreign occupation.
Subsequent generations still need a scaffolding to cling to as they mature. And if that scaffold isn't rooted in some new existential or moral foundation (or if it's rooted in a rotten one) you end up with ultra-nationalism, or Victorian mysticism, or whatever paint Ayn Rand was huffing.
Leviathan
in reply to UnderpantsWeevil • • •UnderpantsWeevil
in reply to Leviathan • • •"The problem with religion is that people won't stop being religious" is circular and thought-terminating
How do you sooth public anxieties at a national level?
How do you foster egalitarian social habits?
Seems like you'd need some kind of broad social project or moral imperitive for a nation's worth of people to align with.
melsaskca
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •dontbelievethis
in reply to melsaskca • • •melsaskca
in reply to dontbelievethis • • •Not mine. Monty Python "The Bruce's Philosophy Song".
Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy little beggar
Who could think you under the table
David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will
On half a pint of brandy was particularly ill
Plato, they say, could stick it away
Half a crate of whiskey every day
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle
Hobbes was fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart
"I drink, therefore I am"
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed
molave
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to molave • • •molave
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •sad_detective_man
in reply to molave • • •DrStanleyGoodspeed
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •lessthanluigi
in reply to DrStanleyGoodspeed • • •Juice
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •301 Paul Ricoeur: The Masters of Suspicion (1993) - Rick Roderick
Rick Roderick (Rick Roderick -)sad_detective_man
in reply to Juice • • •Fuck yeah I am. I've got a living playlist of lectures I can add this into, thank you!
Actually I see a yt video at the top of the page here, can I watch all the episodes there as an option?
Juice
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •Here's a playlist of his Self Under Siege lectures.
These videos were such a good foundation for my own learning! And Rick Roderick was a real one. Hope you enjoy!
Rick Roderick Lectures: The Self Under Siege
Keaton Postler (YouTube)sad_detective_man
in reply to Juice • • •jangyik
in reply to sad_detective_man • • •i’m pretty sure gods and religions were invented exactly because of people were thinking there is “no higher meaning”
meaning that religion had to be a response to nihilism