I don't think the Snap affected much non-sapient animals and plants. When The Blip happens there's no mention of (what used to be) 50% of the animals and plants reappearing all over Earth.

Love Sartre, especially his Marxism. But what about Heidegger?

I actually love Nietzsche, especially his nihilism. But I don’t usually associate him that strongly with classical Existentialism. After Kierkegaard, I would say Heidegger would be next.

Is there a subreddit dedicated to shitting on Nassim Taleb?

>When you consider how important the meaning of words and the limits of languages are

"Importance" is a myth, it exists nowhere but in our imagination.

​

"In order for philosophy to propagate fully it’s authors intent there must be a semantic agreement with the audience."

There is nothing there "must" be as "imperatives" are another myth. Even if there being a semantic agreement is/were... essential for philosophy to propagate this would not make "imperatives" a non-myth.

Looking at his profile, seems he's been off his meds for quite a while...

That sounds like a very strong confident assumption about you and me; I wonder if you can easily act outside that contextual believed-in framework ? 😁

I'm sorry, I don't really follow your conclusion.

If the word you are thinking of for me is 'hypocrite', then that's fair. I recognize that this is not entirely intellectually consistent. The problem is that, in my eyes, being entirely intellectually consistent leads to one of two outcomes.

1. Nothing matters, consume what you want. All businesses do shitty things, so don't worry about it.
2. Completely disengage with society. All businesses, all governments, everyone does shitty things, so withdraw from all of it.

The problem is, I don't think either of these are actually helpful outcomes.

In the latter case, unless you found some commune and call forth followers to the woods (in which case, your own actions enter into the equations) you are never going to change anything.

In the former, nothing gets better because you cast aside that 'better' means anything at all. Everyone sucks, so who cares who sucks more than others?

What I am trying to outline is what I call 'doing my best'. I can choose, if/when I want to buy something for my partner, not to buy blood diamonds. I can choose not to consume (and support) media by people who are POS's. I can try to educate myself on how to support elected candidates that will push for better working conditions. Does my consumption sill cause harm? Absolutely, but I can try to make that as small as possible.

Because it is easier to find information on which art is made by problematic actors (but due to celebrity gossip and the high profile nature of the individuals), and because people have such an emotional attachment to art, it is the avenue of consumption that is most affected by people trying to be ethical consumers. Maybe it shouldn't be any different, but it is.

"It is like an engine that takes you to where the journey should begin..."

"Should" is a myth, it never exists outside our imagination. Hume didn't think far enough. There is no "ought". The universe has no preferences.

>This doesn't mean that philosophy lacks objectivity or value, but it's important to recognize that...

"Value" and "importance" are myths, they never exist outside our imagination.

Schopenhauer is another very very similar author to Freud.

>No one can remove themselves from the context of who they are in any moment (culture, personal lived experiences, language, beliefs, scientific views of the era, etc. etc.).

A few conversations with me and you might change your mind about that.

Nothing can ever be "justified" since "justification" is a myth. We can't even "justify" inhaling the atmosphere, we just do it.

Jung writes about this and is beautiful

Well to be fair I graduated a few years back. And most of what was covered on Freud was general history of psychology and references to general theories.

Another great one is Bruno Laytour: We Have Never Been Modern, argues that the concept of what it means to modern has always been contingent on the time. And that scientific objects are insperable from human nature

and you can hate the artist who makes art you enjoy...

I didn't express myself well. What I meant to say was that the article is meant to be about the concept of seperating the art from the artist. So while johnny Depp is mentioned, it's not JUST about him or JUST about Kanye west or whatever. This is quite a common phenomenon now I mean I can think of like 3-4 people off the top of my head that have done absolutely horrible things, but they have a corpus of respected work still, and I'm terrible with celebrities and famous names and such.

Life is just a game in which we get bored eventually:

Alright so, let me explain. I'm a random internet stranger, and during these past months, I've been thinking about stuff over and over again, in hopes that whatever I reach will help me in life eventually.

Anyways, one night I was walking around my living room and thinking about things. And (with some help from my mom) I then deciphered something.

I started thinking about why people felt sad, and why would some people "quit the game" if you know what I mean (I hope that works; if not then any mod can tell me to delete the message lol) and then my thinking train went on and on and then I deciphered that, much like in a game, we always want to feel happy.

Then I wondered: "So, what makes us happy?" and once again, I started thinking about it. I remembered one learning from a source that says that "survival is our goal", and then I realised, that being happy really just meant that we knew we were effective at meeting our goals".

So, then I concluded with the idea that happiness is our most important goal, and to reach happiness we just need to know that we are progressing on our goals, and meeting them.

(Extra note: While writing this, I also realised that reproduction isn't exactly tied to survival, but I guess that it can be counted as "survival beyond the body" like having children. This is a side I still haven't explored yet so if you guys have any ideas then help me out)

So... Then I wondered about one last thing: What happens when we reach our goal? What happens when there are no goals in life, no objective, no games?

I like to explain this idea by comparing it to Minecraft. When we start a new world, we need to survive, get food, and then get better armor to be more effective at surviving (and of course for brag value and because we know its better). But... what happens when the "main game" (Killing the dragon, getting netherite, etc.) is done?

Simple, there are two options: And the first one is to leave the game. It's not because we hate it, but it really is because we just don't have anything more to do with it. Or... you could do what long time players do, and focus on the building or in the multiplayer side, which do not run out of content and make you entertained again.

Anyways, back to real life:

I believe that one of the reasons we can be sad sometimes it's really because we do not find anything interesting to do in life (since boredness comes from lack of happiness). If you've seen struggling sometimes, there are times in which they seem more happy than rich people who have their lives figured out.

This, coupled with any other negative feelings about the game of life (maybe guilt for something, feeling hopeless or thinking there is no solution for your problem) makes people very sad, and they simply decide to "quit the game".

It's not really a irrational decision; it's what they think of the game. However... there is one factor that makes quitting the game a bad decision imo, and it's that, just like in Minecraft, you can find happiness and entertainment again in other areas of the game of life. You need to find another new objective which makes you happy.

Despite our best efforts, we still don't know what happens when we die. And that is why quitting the game is such a risky decision, so, that is why I prefer this option.

And so, to conclude I would like to advise you all to never quit the game. I am not sure if my theory is correct (and that is why I also came here; I want to know other opinions and counterarguments too), but if it is then maybe we can all be happy playing the game, and thrive.

Whew, that was a ride lmao. Take care everyone, and I'll answer to your arguments below :D

First of all, what Nietzsche described as the Dionysian, though it has many analogs to freuds idea of the unconscious or the ID, it is not an exact copy, and freud was arguing about completely different strands of thought in a different context. Orthodox methodology in intellectual history tends to eschew this sort of thinking, there’s even a term for it:teleological history. Just because they sound similar doesn’t mean it’s the same thing, and there’s good reason for considering freud the father of psychoanalysis. The conscious/subconcious dialectic is very different from the Dionysian-Apollonian, in simply terms.

Second, he’s not prescribing the Dionysian counter ideal as something that is innately good by itself. It’s the balancing of both that is required, and that’s very different from an explicit endorsement of the Dionysian.

Didn't realize there were psych departments still giving air to that old fraud.

> and further suggests that he was intentionally lying

Like when he was "curing" those women.

You’re right it’s definitely an attack on analytical philosophy. More generally it’s an attack on rationality in the abstract which also includes the scientific world view, positivism, etc.

Hello. I'm Albert Camus, Of Camus' Own Thoughts For Youse. I'm telling you folks this is amazing, the world's first canned soundbites. knock knock See? Tin. Forget books, forget everything else. Its all meaningless in the face of the Absurd. That is not a bad thing. It simply is.

[removed]