ITT: Post the dumbest philosophy and the reason why

Hello Jew

it's really great as a stepping stone to see how the world operates as a whole. It's great, but utterly simplistic.

this. dogmatic beliefs of a partial perspective of reality, and trying to subjugate the masses to it doesn't sit well with me.

Attached: 1428688522655.png (144x115, 16K)

How is this original??? Originaliofcourse

Attached: 3344.jpg (400x400, 22K)

>Veganism
you didn't post the reason why

let me try
>Carnism
mimicking the behavior of wild animals is fucked up
it's unreasonable to kill when we don't need to

LMAO LOOK AT YOU!! ALL OF YOU!!

Attached: sHSX2NP.jpg (1024x768, 144K)

>and the reason why

Attached: stirner2.png (238x211, 8K)

I spent a lot of time looking into it.
Had a bit of a nervous breakdown and severe god why don't I just die right now levels of depression at the ripe old age of 14 and spent most of my time reading every single bit of religious philosophical mystical occult anything I could find.
The existential dread that kept me up for hours every night, that when I die that will be it. Then the fatalist view and that nothing mattered except living and fear of death keeps me alive yet not living...
Was kind of fucked up for a while there.

Then I started playing football and lifting weights because only the iron was real and understanding and pushing my body and mind and feeling out my soul was...

Yeah anyway a lot of philosophy is just ridiculous bullshit
When you allow philosophy and media and other people to change how you view the world yourself, this will inevitably change who you are.
You become a slave.

There's a reason why this site is filled with the kinds of uttelry motherfucking STUPID threads and kinds of pics that it has been for the last few fucking years.
Figure it out.

The dumbest philosophy is Me-ism. Nobody gives a fuck about Me and my Philosophy.

I believed in Trump and and he became President. Arbitrary what? You on weed or what?

Not really a cuck if he got that Salome puss.
But a bitch for having his intellectual "self-conscious" work influenced by his emotions. Literally was such a sadboy that Lou didn't want to marry him that his writing became unusually nihilistic, kinda like you biased faggots.
People also forget that Thus Spoke Zarathustra was literally a satirical self-insert, but a self-insert nonetheless. Still had some good ideas like will to power and self responsibility and how women are intellectually cows (or cats and dogs) because most are incredibly shallow. Some other good shit about how to overcome challenges and so on.
Beyond Good and Evil is great read, a lot of "Truth is a meme" and "Philosophers are dogmatic retards" because subjectivity exists, but I'm only finished the prejudice in philosophy part.

Attached: 880.jpg (474x528, 20K)

you're looking at through postmodernism through the wrong side

its a philosophy on the comment on the state of that information, and how it affects western historicity. its actually kind of exciting for non-western civilizations because the west is just so lost with this school of thought.

>I've always hated the idea that things become true simply by believing in them
in the context of your own mind, your true "self", what you believe in wholeheartedly is all that is real. it is your reality. if you believe in aliens, in your reality, aliens are real. why does it matter if the physical world would prove your suspicions correct or not? you believe in them either way, and when you exclude environment and only look at self, that's all that matters.

they don't physcally become real when you believe however, but they might as well. in the context of only yourself, it is irrelevant as to whether they are created physically or not.

This guy right here. Empty abstractions much?

Attached: BT_KANT_2_final.jpg (1024x599, 121K)

Analytic philosophy is the viewpoint of, the world is too complicated, so let's make a whole school of philosophy about an imaginary world where everything is orderly.

Is beauty not subjuective?

Hey man, there's a reason that human brain mass fucking doubled over an extremely short period of time before leveling out. It was either the fact that we began cooking meat, giving us better access to protein, fat, and essential hormones/neurotransmitters/good eats OR psilocybin mushrooms. Take your pick. I know a lot of you vegan pussies are "straight edge" too.

But we do you idiot we still need fucking meat

Veganism on the other hand is unnatural(not that i care but whatever) and you need supplements

from a philosophical erspective, it pretty much ends with reason. the problem is whether or not you can/will apply it to any areas of your life, application is higher than reason therefore, yet it is not philosophical and therefore unlikely to be discussed.

it's economical, or at least it was before massive farming and beekeeping techniques were invented. the problem of course remains the acquiescence of saturated fats (and fat related compounds, like sterols), which mainly come from dairy and meat products, being found in minute quantities elsewhere.

Seriously though, The Dumbest Philosophy is Me-ism thinking I know Jack Shit. I don't know Jack Fucking Shit, that's why I voted for Trump.

Thus Spoke the Empowerment of the Masculine Soul and 2001.

>application is higher than reason therefore, yet it is not philosophical
This is a modern conceit. Descartes dissected cadavers to understand more about the body, because he felt like other philosophers were going off half-cocked about sense perception. For that matter, Galileo's title was Court Philosopher, and Aristotle was responsible for the basic breakdown of the scientific/philosophical disciplines. It's just, philosophy nowadays is science for people who hate doing real work, or computer science for people who hate typing.

>antinatalism
>dumb
It's pretty much the last, if not the only pill to take, right before cyanide.
And I'm not being sarcastic, there's a lot of truth in antinatalism.
Sadly most of humanity are brick-headed idiots that rely on muh biological instincts and thus don't see it.

Attached: harold thinking.jpg (750x864, 178K)

Except everything is subjective.
The only objective part is that different views of things, such as beauty, music, and everything else, just exists.

that's because we have scientists who specialize in fields of medicine instead of mediating on it. the only philosophy left is for the participles of life that aren't otherwise already covered, in excess.

>Yeah guys, let's stop procreating because our offspring might suffer sometime in their life ;;;(

Philosophy for pussies. Basically just a glorification of non-existence to assuage your fears of death.

There is no happiness without suffering, and no suffering without happiness. Frankly, I rather enjoy being alive, even when things are shitty.

We did what we had to in a survival setting, when we were a part of the food chain, and we evolved to who we are today because of it.
Skip forward to today, and we no longer need to consume animal products to survive and even have healthier lives if we choose not to.

If you're arguing for carnism from an evolutionary standpoint, then I completely agree with you. Ad hominems are nothing to do with it.

any philosophical view that ends in the absolute destruction of the non-view, rather than harmonious integration of beliefs, shouldn't really be considered philosophy.

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.

You might not care, but you shouldn't talk shit if you're uneducated.

couldn't have said it better myself
origgg

Attached: 1530305371403.jpg (466x466, 64K)

You mean the American Dietic assocation that still allows the completely bullshit "food pyramid" thing to be used?

I don't trust anything american that claims to be doing it for beneficial reasons.

A pure vegan diet leads to a whole host of issues and mostly because they are not all appropriately planned and you can only do them for so long before you start to see fuck ups.

A well designed omnivorous diet that cuts out all junkfoods, preprocessed foods, and is little more then organic veg, grass fed meats/wild animals and fish, fruit, nuts, berries, and spices is superior to every single diet you can name.
Every single one.

antinatalism
>my life as a spoiled middle class kid was so haaaard, life sucks everyone should just die :(((

>my life as a spoiled middle class kid was so haaaard, life sucks everyone should just die :(((
that doesn't have anything to do with it you dumb fuck.

that's literally exactly what antinatalism is
it's whiny suburbanites arguing for the death of the human race because they're so "enlightened" about their suffering :((

Don't be an antinatalist lest you turn into this guy
youtube.com/watch?v=LMbDhDQlLqg

Could never get the epic spoops man, it's paradoxical, idk I might be just dumb

Attached: you-have-been-visited-by-stirner-the-spook-man-of-18926438.png (500x300, 46K)

You put an apple and a bunny rabbit in front of a child and let me know when the child plays with the apple and eats the animal. If you want to talk about what's natural, our jaws happen to move from side to side in a chewing motion when we eat - like herbivores. What's unnatural is intensive farming, artificial insemination, "humane slaughter" etc.

Well you just pointed out the only legitimate issue with people on vegan diets, and that's the people on them who do not appropriately plan or follow them. Aside from that, meat eaters are at a significantly higher risk of dying from heart disease, types of cancers, etc. and meat makes it harder to maintain a healthy body weight. It also has a lot of hormones in it and cholesterol which we don't need.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

The dumbest thing in philosophy is thinking that the individual person is in any way special. I concur there are temporary advantages to humanity in propagating this delusionary mindset.

Virtue ethicists are the biggest cucks. They do everything to make people happy. Completely disregarding their own self interests in order to get some sort of twisted satisfaction by helping people.

>But we do you idiot we still need fucking meat
how so? anything you can get from meat you can get from plants aside from b12 which is easily supplemented. meat also contains cholesterol which can lead to heart disease; the number 1 killer of humans in the world.
>Philosophy for pussies. Basically just a glorification of non-existence to assuage your fears of death
non-arguments. can i ask what your full understanding of antinatalism is?
>There is no happiness without suffering, and no suffering without happiness
this doesn't justify the act of procreating. the point is that you're imposing life on someone and subjecting them to the harms of existence when there was absolutely no need to.
>Frankly, I rather enjoy being alive, even when things are shitty
and that's good, but we're talking about those that don't exist yet and whether or not it's moral to create life. the reason you still prefer being alive even when things aren't going so well is because of how humans are biologically wired. this can be overcome however, if you're in enough suffering that you become suicidal.
well it is a philosophy, whether or not you think it should be. try arguing against the premises of the philosophy instead.
making a blanket statement about a whole group doesn't disapprove their ideas/arguments. it's just fallacious reasoning.
inmendham isn't a great image for antinatalism, but he does provide some pretty decent arguments and insights at times. not all antinatalists are like this though. that dude is incredibly neurotic and misanthropic.

>it's whiny suburbanites arguing for the death of the human race
you don't have to be a suburbanite middle class person to see how shit everything is, and that there is pretty much no way out.

Would you care to elaborate more on the "harms of existence"?

Death, the final "harm of existence" just takes you right back to where you started. What's so wrong with that?

How can giving life to another human be anything but a blessing, when life can be anything from an ant to fish on an alien world?
Every human has won the jackpot of life regardless of their situation, it actually baffles me how anyone can be for anti-natalism...

t. whiny suburbanite
>BAAAAAWWWW MY LIFE IS SO HARD, STACY WONT DATE ME :((((

I'm Old......I'm Older than you can possibly imagine. Heck, I'm Old! There is REALITY beyond your Brain in the Jar!

How is Application higher than Reason?

you're generalizing. antinatalism is strictly about not bringing anymore beings into the world. it's not about wanting people to die.
one of them is the fact that from the moment of birth, our bodies are in a constant state of entropy. this creates a bunch of suffering in itself since we have a bunch of biological needs that need constant satiating. another one is the harms that people can cause others which is the misanthropic angle of the antinatalist argument. then you have the more extreme forms of suffering, which anyone who reproduces leaves their offspring vulnerable to throughout the course of their whole life (with milder forms of it such as the flu, etc. being experienced all throughout). essentially, procreating is a gamble with almost no guarantees involved. it's also a selfish act that is never done in the name or sake of the unborn. you also subject someone to death, which a lot of people are not okay with and spend a lot of their time avoiding. it might not be a problem for you, but it is for the great majority and doesn't make procreating any less immoral. yes death does take us back into non-existence, but it's the suffering and pain you inevitably subject someone to in-between that is the problem.
that's your own subjective opinion. what's not subjective however is the harms a sentient being will inevitably experience from being brought into existence and the fact that it's an imposition. i'm curious, have you ever done any deeper readings into the philosophy?

The Dumbest, absolute dumbest Philosophy is to be a Crowd Cuck!

Hell, how is any form of knowledge "higher" than another? What does it mean for knowledge to be "high"?

Existentialism
>I just learned that the values I believed existed was just me pretending...I know. I'll just pretend even more!
Absurdism is the next step after nihilism

>ignorance is bliss
>nihilism
ignorance is bliss makes sense but its used in the wrong way 98% of the time.
Nihilism just fucks the world to death.

i also forgot to mention that dying can cause a whole bunch of pain for those who care about you. you might not be around to experience their grief or sadness, but it's still the case that they will experience a harm even though if you do not.

Belief and Cognitive Dissonance? Funny you should mention that. If you wanna believe you're a Turkey, I can accommodate that.

I'd disagree that bringing a human into being is causing them harm in existence, but I could get on board with the philosophy considering the harm we humans inevitably cause to others (animals, environment). I find it hard to believe, if aliens were to arrive, that they would see us as anything less than overlords of a decrepit world. Procreation for our survival may be the meaning of life, but perhaps that meaning is lost when we don't deserve to.

No.

>nihilism

Cant accept the truth?

You talk about the harms that come from failure to satiate our biological needs, but not any of the pleasures that come from succeeding. You mention the harms that people inflict on one another, but not the successes of human cooperation. Your argument seems a bit one-sided.

To talk about the morality of procreating is an exercise in futility. People don't procreate because it's moral. We procreate because we're programmed to. In the infinite space of conscious brain configurations, evolution will only grant existence to those with an instinct to procreate. It is not "cruel". It's just a search algorithm, and it will keep running even in your absence - for the next 600-800 million years on this planet, and likely for billions of years on countless others.

Philosophy ain't dictated from above. If those whom you think are above you taught you philosophy then they desecrated philosophy. Unburden yourself from them, follow the Yellow Brick Road and maybe you'll find the strength to unlearn what they taught you, and begin again.

Theism.
Libertarian free will.
Idealism.
Solipsism.
Popculturism.
Rick and Morty Nihilism.

>I'd disagree that bringing a human into being is causing them harm in existence
care to explain why? if you read my reply to the other person i quoted above you i demonstrate how it is always a harm. i also have my personal beliefs about how aliens would react when finding out about humanity, but these beliefs don't hold any relevancy to the moral arguments being made.
>Procreation for our survival may be the meaning of life
i disagree. there is no objective meaning or purpose to our lives. procreation is merely just a tool to continue the survival of the species.
>No
i'd recommend looking up the wikipedia page for antinatalism if you're interested in learning a bit more since it might help clear up some misconceptions you have about it and give you a better understanding of the arguments being made.

The idea of oblivion. Not because it's bad, but laymen miscontrue it to mean we experience a literal void after we die. But guess what? Even the experience of void exists and so can't possibly be the way people experience death. I don't think oblivion is wrong, but I like to step back and think that humans cannot comprehend oblivion. To think of it as concrete experience is inaccurate. I know oblivion is the most obvious choice of after(non)life but there's no use conceptualizing it as it is only possible to think about life, not nonlife, as then our senses would still apparently exist if we died, which is absurd. We can't sense the insensible.

ok holy shit i just looked into nihilism a bit more and it actually sounds sound. you just have to be superhuman for it to work for you, but if you are superhuman: IT IS FOR YOU

That's true, but it's somewhat ironic that you mention that, because there would be no harm in loss if there was no happiness to be lost in the first place.

it does seem one-sided. i don't discount the existence of pleasure and joy in case you think that. i just don't think it has any moral value. i get morals are subjective and not everyone will hold the same beliefs as i, but it doesn't seem very rational to view pleasure that way. i'll give an example as to why i think that. imagine if you were going about your daily life and saw a child drowning in relatively shallow water that would be of no threat to you. would you not feel morally obligated to save them? similarly, if you were to see this child on the street minding their own business, would you feel a moral obligation to hand them an ice cream to increase their pleasure?
>To talk about the morality of procreating is an exercise in futility
i'd argue otherwise. if you're interested in reducing suffering then it is indeed not an exercise in futility, especially if you can convince others.
>People don't procreate because it's moral. We procreate because we're programmed to
and that right there is the problem. most people don't even put any thought when considering the act of having a child. most are just following their biological instincts to have sex or the social programming they've been ingrained with since they were a child. that's not a counter-argument to the philosophy though, it's just a statement and not a justification.
>In the infinite space of conscious brain configurations, evolution will only grant existence to those with an instinct to procreate
i'm not sure what you mean by granting existence to those with an instinct to procreate. care to elaborate?
>It is not "cruel"
i guess that would depend on what value system we're working under, if any at all. i'd personally say it is cruel since you'd be making an imposition and as mentioned, subjecting someone to the harms of existence when there's no reason to.

1/2

antinatalism but for shitskins only

>It's just a search algorithm, and it will keep running even in your absence - for the next 600-800 million years on this planet, and likely for billions of years on countless others
again, i'm not really following what you're saying. by "search algorithm" are you referring to love and how we're biologically wired to seek out the best mate in order to propagate our genes? i understand people will keep procreating even in my absence, but we're discussing the moral implications of procreating. these ideas and values will live on even without me.

2/2

your last sentence reminds me of benatar's asymmetry argument (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#David_Benatar). i'm not sure if you've heard about it but he makes a similar line of reasoning in the argument he's most known for. the similarity i'm drawing being his statement of how a non-existent being can't be deprived of pleasure.

*upvote*
morality is a spook

Nietzsche is good though, you fucking underage. He pretty much says fuck nihilism, even if existence is supposedly meaningless, you're supposed to say fuck it and find your own meaning to rise above and become an ubermensch.

Nietzche hated anti-semites.

Personally I would say that all of these things are reasonably subjective, but post modernism argues that everything is absolutley subjective.

Everything is reasonably subjective, at least arguably. I think that most people would agree that there is some fundamental stuff that you can say about all of these things if you work out just how to express it.

Yea, this pretty much ruined my life.

'higher' in this context means layers of complexity and structure added upon it. understanding your senses, understanding why a=b, is more complex than so; and reasoning of both senses and its understanding leads to a complex synthesis, why a=b=c therefore a=c

however, reasoning means nothing without an application. If you don't apply your reasoning, you can never add more complexity and thus have an even higher cognitive development.

if not a=b=c then a=c however 5c is needed but there is only 3a and 2b therefore the task can be completed. application leads to higher thought.

no, it's not philosophy, it's a doctrine to guide the masses, not enlighten them. If however you mean to discuss the concept and principals of anti-natalism, as opposed to other worldly views that would be philosophical in nature.

Just going to make that clear.

Enlightenment, French encyclopedists and Sceintism.

Wait, I just listed synonyms, shit.

anything religious

>this is gods word, cannot be broken
>no one fucking follows it
>nothing happens

ok

Anti-natalism is a good, smart philosophy based on eliminating all potential suffering.

If you don't understand or favor anti-natalism then you probably don't understand consequentialism so here.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consequentialism

Anti-natalism is one of the most autist philosophies I've run into. It's factually and technically correct, while wildly missing out on all of the factors that make us human, in the way that only autists tend to be.

God just shut the fuck up you flaming retard

Lol dude, helping people is actually cool and good.

You have to be at least 18 years of age to post on this site.

I'm probably older than you are, son.