How do I buy friends?

>How do I buy friends?
Fuck having ""friends""
Jow Forums is your fren faggot

>besides, 2d > 3d

>How are you supposed to have friends and keep them?
need a reason to meet up every week or two

If I'm honest, people hate me. It's always like this, any person doesn't want to hear the truth, only what they want to hear. I've tried and only speeds up the process to people to stop talking to me.

stack OTO Cash

why do they hate you? what's bad about you?
are you very critical of others? or are you very critical of yourself?
or are you the type that always complains but then never acts to change

Your sentence is your life for the rest of your inept spark.

God have mercy on your materialistic soul.

A typical breed that has seen stuff but never done anything ...

It's "them" that are not friends...

ever thought about what a friend is?

Wow this is actually a normal thread, I am new here and only saw people being toxic to others. I love philosophy and Russian literature too tho, now I am reading Nietzsche and I am also getting into Zizek and Bauman

>why do they hate you?
I'm boring and people soon realize that it's a waste of time talking to me.
>are you very critical of others?
Very much. I know my limitations but when I try to talk about the subject with anyone, they tend to seem annoyed not by the fact that they can be better but that I'm pointing it out.

>or are you the type that always complains but then never acts to change
Complain doesn't do anything to improve one self.

What is a friend?

Attached: bocchi-1.png (1123x632, 1.46M)

nohow, friends are shit

Are you a friend to someone?

Or does it work the other way around in your realm of things?

Attached: please.jpg (680x451, 31K)

You don't need to buy friends, you just need a goku-get 'em attitude

what do you think about zizek?
is he worth reading as someone who is extremely right-wing, hierarchy-oriented and traditionalist?
or would the difference between our thoughts fly straight over my head and make me bored or frustrated

I am also in a similar situation, I always had friend during high school but I am just realizing how stranger they are to me. I don’t really identify them as friend anymore, I just hope to move out as soon as possible and find someone that I really relate to

>I'm boring and people soon realize that it's a waste of time talking to me.
Do you find yourself boring?
Do you enjoy life on a day-to-day basis?
Are you fulfilled?

Do you want to be my friend?

I only keep in regular contact with humans that are in some way useful to me, even if that is only cultural or emotional "value"

Yeah u should read him, he goes beyond the typical leftist ideas, just like Nietzsche “philosophise with a hammer”, Zizek too analyze our reality without the superstructure that we are used to. I reccomend you to read him before getting some ideas

You could define me as a leftist tho, maybe our point of views aren’t the same but I still hope u get something from Zizek, he’s a great philosopher

I'll take a look into it.
I've often been interested in reading leftist canon but I've digested so much critique of those core ideas that reading e.g. Das Kapital would just be months of tedious pain and annoyance for me at this point.

we are always here for you fren

Attached: 86549f89.png (271x186, 7K)

Marx is another great philosopher tho, his ideas were revolutionary and he’s nothing to do with the bolshevic’s revolution, so we shouldn’t condemn him to the damnatio memoriae

The capital is a pain in the ass tho hahaha I agree with u

>I am new here and only saw people being toxic to others

Attached: 1527150737533.jpg (222x227, 17K)

Am I wrong? I don’t think so

>nothing to do
Literally fuck off.
Yes, Das Kapital has some interesting takes on the nature of capital, but you're a dishonest nigger for trying to say he had "nothing to do" with the Bolsheviks.

I understand that, and to a degree I sympathize with him.

Though I'm more on about the absolute core of Marxism - dialectic materialism, labour theory of value, its understanding of capitalism, its understanding of entrepreneurship, exploitation theory.

Any part of Marx's works which assume any of these as axioms [even if previously proved] would just be unreadable for me.

That’s true tho...he was already dead and gone. Taking someone’s ideas and making them an utopia or worse doesn’t make him responsible for the atrocities of Stalin/URSS. Just like Nietzsche Philosophy that was labeled as pro nazism even though he died in 1900

Well okay, I respect your opinion

>9 posts by this ID
>dubs confirm

The difference is a matter of degree, but Marx was a revolutionary activist (in his earlier years) and supported the idea of a communist revolution and was instrumental in the spreading of these notions, both through his activities as a revolutionary and through his activities as an author.
The stretch between Marxism and the October Revolution is also much. much smaller than that between Nietzscheanism and fascism, which are absolute opposites.

You dont reach Bolshevism without Marx.
Marx had something to do with Bolshevism and no amount of dishonesty will change that fact.

Still, he’s idea of revolution was drastically different than the one of Lenin and that’s why the URSS ideology is called Marxism Leninism. They raped his ideas at the very moment they planned the October revolution

Please study both of them and maybe then you’ll get it.

Any action at all resulting from Marx's ideas can be seen as a bastardization of them, of course, since the dialectic occurs from without them.

Yet the spread of the idea that communism was inevitable and good, and that the capitalists were oppressing the worker, certainly contributed to the fermentation of the October revolution.
Marx himself didn't even seem too betrothed to his individual-passive dialectic, or at least liked to flirt with the alternative.
The individual whose revolutionary ideas were disseminated like intellectual wildfire, and, when asked about Russia, said that it "would first be necessary to eliminate the deleterious influences which are assailing it (the rural commune) from all sides" in order to bring about the state of communism from the state of Tsarism, cannot be held entirely unaccountable from the actions of those who merely thought 'let's do the needful'.

BE MY FRIEND REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Deflection and moving goal posts, it's all you can do.
"Marx had nothing to do with the bolshevik's revolution."
You don't get to Bolshevism without Marx. There is a direct influence and they never tried to hide it.
The purpose of the Bolshevik vanguard under the likes of Lenin was to approach the Marxist utopia through a controlled transition . Yes, this differs from Stalinist and Trotskyist philosophy, but they all share the ROOT of Marxist theory. The purpose of each of these major players in the "far left" is the pursuit of the Marxist world.
You're being intellectually dishonest, evasive, and dismissive. Marx had something to do with Bolshevism in the same way an egg had something to do with a chicken.

Go into your win32 folder and delete the file called "system tray." Just ignore all that gibberish about file functions, agree to anything it asks you.

I am not denying the violent instance that Marx theories have, to agree with Marx you have to be somehow Machiavellian when it comes to politics. What I am saying is that the Bolsheviks didn’t wait the history time (dunno how to say it, English is not my first language) and with Stalin the URSS became a capitalistic society maybe even worse then the American one, as u still had basic rights there. It’s obvious that they took some ideas from him but what I am saying is that they bastardized his ideas and inevitably condemned him.

>What I am saying is that the Bolsheviks didn’t wait the history time
And this is how Marxism can always refuse responsibility for ANYTHING which comes as a result of it, a priori. Because Marxism disassociates the progress of history from the actions of man, such that if anyone does anything with the ideas of Marx as an influence, Marxism cannot be the cause.
Nonetheless, history is not influenced by not-man, it is influenced by man. If communism is to come, man will bring it. It may not be a Lenin-type revolutionary, but it will nonetheless result from the actions of people, many people. If this results in bad things, one can recede behind ones books and say: they didn't wait, they were acting against history and the dialectic.
If it shows signs of promise, and people see that good things appear to be happening as a result of the 'revolution' then it turns out that they in fact DID wait for the exact right time and it happened naturally AS A RESULT of the dialectical process.
In this way, no matter what happens, Marxism can exhonerate itself from all any any guilt, a priori, for actions in its name which we dislike are outside of the scope of the theory, and actions which we like which are done in its name are done because of the theory.

Yet this is no better than positing that one day our parents will be killed and it will be good for us - but it's a result of natural historical forces, not of man's action. If we kill them and it's bad, we didn't wait long enough. If we kill them and it's good, then the forces were in action.

This is snake oil.

ˢᵐᵒˡˡ ˢᵉʳᵍ

Attached: smoll.png (40x40, 7K)

>ˢᵐᵒˡˡ ˢᵉʳᵍ
ˢᵐᵒˡˡ ˢᵉʳᵍ

It was fun chatting with u but now I have to go. As for the first topic I would recommend you to be yourself and try to interact more with others, sometimes it’s not you it’s just the people around you.

tfw no friends

I have to disagree with this one, The Russian revolution had nothing to do with people and their actions. It was from the start a planned thing, people had no voice in the so called revolution. When Marx talked about the times of history and the dialect in general, he wasn’t dissociating history and people, the exact opposite! History is the result of people's actions, which are determined by people’s mindset, the famous “class conscience” that he talked about. When I say that Bolsheviks didn’t wait the times of history I mean that they planned everything without waiting the masses to form a class conscience. And when there is no class conscience, there is no real revolution. To picture better what I am trying to say you could compare the first Roman Republic of the Italian Renaissance and the Russian “revolution”.

Now I really have to go, pls compare those two as there is an abyss between the two.
Hope u have a great day

U can’t say that the Russian revolution wasn’t a planned thing, like for real, u have to be blind to not admit that

That may very well be true (the class conscience did not - and cannot - exist to a degree sufficient for true revolution).

The thing is, if communism fails, it is a result of the action of people working according to their own values - as people always do.
It is not because of earthquakes, or tornadoes, or the wrath of God, that communism fails. It is the actions of individuals.
It follows that, wherever communism fails, individuals can be blamed for their lack of class consciousness.
The revolution that resulted in failure can, then, ALWAYS be considered a fake revolution.
Even if the 'class consciousness' wanes down the line, and the collapse comes thereafter, the collapse can always be attributed to the waning of class consciousness - especially given the fact that class consciousness cannot be remotely observed or measured, it must be assumed.

Therefore, every single time a communist revolution fails, one can exonerate the theory from guilt and blame those who suffered as a consequence of the revolution for lacking faith.

It is essentially the exact same argument that backs the religious-literalist metaphysic that faith can, literally, move mountains. If the mountain remains still, then your faith was merely not strong enough.
In this way, 'faith' is free from guilt whenever man acts upon it and fails - for nobody can view the degree to which that man acted with faith, and man has failed to utilize it to move a mountain. And faith works. Therefore the man lacked faith.

For we must take into account that even admitting the possibility that communism (or Marxism) is faulty in the first place is to be considered a waning of class consciousness - so pointing out the failures of the revolution can, in absolutely all instances, absolutely a priori, be shown as proof for the dwindling of class consciousness.
The lack of class consciousness is taken to be the condition upon which a revolution cannot succeed - and therefore we can arrive at the following dichotomy. Which side one chooses is dependent on whether or not one has completely swallowed the theory, for it is impossible to escape:

A person claims that the revolution is not working. Therefore he lacks the class consciousness required for the revolution (from the perspective of those who believe in the revolution), and therefore he is contributing to the destruction of the revolution, and the failure of the revolution was inevitably caused by the fact that the class consciousness did not exist - as proved by the dissent.

or

The revolution is not working. A person sees this, believes it and reports it. We take this as reason to doubt whether or not revolutions are good.

Yeah sure but I see this one as the typical rightist answer, we are not taking about revolutions in general. We were discussing the Russian one, which is objectively a planned fake revolution with or without Marxists idea. Generalizing topics like this is kind of idiotic, so pls let’s return to the subject

You do not understand my point.

1. Revolutions do not work if people do not have faith in their workings.
2. People cannot have faith in the workings of something which they believe is going wrong.

You have locked yourself in a box and do not know how to get out.

Why exactly is "generalising" idiotic when we're discussing what, at the bottom, comes down to metaphysic?

Friends are here

>still have 2 good irl friends from trade school
>feel like I'll lose them soon thanks to recent unforseen circumstances

This place is the only frens I need anyway

Sorry user I was reading the dream of a ridiculous man (I liked it btw) while you guys were discussing. Yeah we can be friends.

Attached: dtkpgxdrpn931.jpg (498x772, 42K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_methods

you read much more quickly than I
how can i contact you

Are you a qt trap?

OP is a fucking tard, if I'm getting the right picture.

You just have to concentrate and close everything that could distract you.
No that's gay.
I just have problems making friends.

Attached: avs82e3rck931.png (640x438, 177K)

Nothing gay about traps.
Do you look somewhat feminine?

b-but what about the second part of my question

Don't put out those vibes user and you won't lose them

Because you say retarded shit to them that you don't see any other intelligent human being saying to someone else.

Fuckin A man. Fuckin hell.I have a hard time with bitches, I can understand not knowing how tot talk to always, dumb and boring women, but hell nigga, you fucked.

normie

oh my id changed because of difference device usage

What kind of things do you like to program? I'm trying to start my own projects. So far I've only done assignments for online courses.
I like Dostoevsky and The Brothers Karamazov too!
I also struggle to make friends. I'm seeing a therapist about that and some other issues. Maybe seeing one could help you too? Especially if it's an anxiety thing.

I had a dream last night I was at a party and everybody avoided me, and it was super awkward. Then a girl came up, made fun of the shape of my head and told me to leave. So I went to burger king and everybody avoided me there too, the staff made fun of me too

Imagine how fucked your self-esteem has to be to have dreams like this

please respond

only can rent

Well that’s exactly what I was talking about, Russian revolution was a big fail attempt cause it wasn’t even a revolution. There was no people believing in it as it was all planned by the Bolsheviks who didn’t even pay attention to the peasants, if u remember well Lenin first economical system (the one before NEP) was just pure war against peasants. That’s all goes to one direction:URSS has little to do with Marxism, and I am not saying this cause it failed but cause there was no real revolution in the first place. The tzar tyranny changed in the Bolshevik one, no difference

Looks like you didn’t looked at the Roman republic. I talked about it cause that’s a great example of real class conscience:people from every social classes, women and men fought for an independent republic in which they believed in. That’s what a real revolution is, one where people are part of it and not victims. (And it still failed but that’s still waaaaay more Marxist than the URSS itself)

I know that there have been revolutions, quite legitimate ones at that perhaps. It has never been my point, and nor have I claimed, that revolutions do not and have not or have not existed.
It is the point what if one is only willing to consider a Marxist revolution a failure when one is satisfied that class consciousness is in a perfect state for a successful Marxist revolution, then you eliminate the concept of Marxism not working.

want to be my friend

user teach me C# and i will hang out with you all day in return.
I'm not a big brain like these other guys though.

Well, we just have different point of views okay

What can u do with #C? I am new here

I don't know if it will work out but we can try it.
What sort of person are you? What do you like to talk about?

i don't know how to describe myself. you can probably get a good grasp of my personality by looking at my posts in this thread
i like reading and i am writing a book

oh and i like music a fair bit i guess but i don't discover much new anymore

I'm probably older than you think and I am a woman. Do you still want to be friends?
Do you like programming?
I did read some of your other comments. I've been thinking about getting into Philosophy and picked up Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, but have only read a little bit. Are you interested in moral philosophy?
What is your book about?

wa ha ha

Curiosity, what’s your age and where do u live?
I am 18, Italy maybe will go to Germany in a couple months

I don't really care about how old my friends are but I'm committed to my gf to a degree that I won't allow the development of situations which could even possibly cause me to get remotely attached to anyone else, despite its unlikelihood.
If I were immortal I'd take up programming. In the summer before my first year at University I dedicated a few months towards consuming a 600 page Java beginner to intermediate theory/exercise book and found it very fun, but there's very much to do in life and my paths have taken my elsewhere.

Such as philosophy.

Kant is likely not the best place to start with the subject unless you are a super-genius. Perhaps not even that would be enough (unless you were to read a large amount of complementary works and explanatory guides) as a lot of his vocabulary is entirely academic philosophical vocabulary which has been built up and developed as a sort of unique dialect since the first philosophers. He presumes you know this stuff.
I'd recommend starting with some Plato and some Aristotle. After that, Descartes will assist with some of the new-European ideas, and Hume will give you reference as to what Kant is responding to.
I like ethical philosophy a lot but consider it fairly different to other forms of [more academic] philosophy, unless we're talking solely interpersonal ethical philosophy instead of personal ethical philosophy [insofar as there's actually a difference].

I like to consume the stuff, and it has made a large difference to my life, but it is no medicine, and it is not whole. Academic, formalized knowledge is the peak of the iceberg of the knowledge [or presumptions] upon which you base your actions, and to truly "get" any work of ethics [be it explicitly philosophical, e.g. Nicomachean Ethics or Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals] or metaphorical [e.g. Thus Sprake Zarathustra, the Bible] you need to integrate its lessons down to the very core of your being.

Which is a much more profound, time-consuming, and troubling process than mere academic learning, and which is why I believe the more metaphorical ethical works are better guides to life, as metaphor uses the actually important, rather than the dead, as its impetus for guidance.

My book is about economics; more specifically an attempt to unify the notion of culture with the notion of economy into one over-arching system for which the mutual relation is synergistic rather than, as now very much dominantly supposed, antagonistic.

The only real friends in life are ones that have stuck with you since you were a kid and ones you’ve play video games with for years, everyone else won’t care for you unless you improve their lifestyle in some type of manner, you have to be a benefit for them it’s not real friendship

Not always I would say

just imagine being in your 30s trying to find new friends. That is impossible right

finding good friends is already so unlikely that the addition of age just makes it almost impossible

I don't want friends. It's not worth your time, not to even mention your money. People are all faggots, probably