Has anyone tried to turn Schopenhauer and his ideas into a religion?

Has anyone tried to turn Schopenhauer and his ideas into a religion?

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    it already has. its called troonydom. thats the direction neobuddhism goes

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Schopenhauer was redpilled

      >In 1848 Schopenhauer witnessed violent upheaval in Frankfurt after General Hans Adolf Erdmann von Auerswald and Prince Felix Lichnowsky were murdered. He became worried for his own safety and property. Even earlier in life he had had such worries and kept a sword and loaded pistols near his bed to defend himself from thieves. He gave a friendly welcome to Austrian soldiers who wanted to shoot revolutionaries from his window and as they were leaving he gave one of the officers his opera glasses to help him monitor rebels. The rebellion passed without any loss to Schopenhauer and he later praised Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz for restoring order. He even modified his will, leaving a large part of his property to a Prussian fund that helped soldiers who became invalids while fighting rebellion in 1848 or the families of soldiers who died in battle. As Young Hegelians were advocating change and progress, Schopenhauer claimed that misery is natural for humans and that, even if some utopian society were established, people would still fight each other out of boredom, or would starve due to overpopulation.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Were the revolutionaries protocommunists?
        it seems like schop just pussied out of change and just said his routine miserable line as a cope that time.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >even if some utopian society were established, people would still fight each other out of boredom
        i depart from Schope on a lot of things but he was sharp

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          No he was just coping.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            oh look, someone who has no unmet needs in life arguing for the sake of arguing

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            he wasn't wrong when he said that. but he was just coping because he's unearned wealth was rightfully was gonna get taken from him. he was just being a homosexual about it. of course life sucks but thats not an excuse for a rich fricker like him to oppress the working class

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            his unearned wealth was rightfully gonna get taken from him.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Schopenhauer did work though in his life time, but him being a rich trust fund kinda does pisses me off, at least hes the only rich person that has empathy for humankind.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            When did he work? He inherited his father's company for a few years and then wept tears of joy when he no longer had to run it, then he just lived off of his inheritance the rest of his life

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            what a lucky homosexual lmao, i heard he was doing some marketing but thats it. I really didn't know he was blessed such a life when people all over was suffering way more than him. What a whiny homosexual.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            He had an unremarkable bourgeois life. Though that's not surprising, that's what blackpills people the most, just like Buddha and many of Schopenhauer's followers like Tolstoy and Wittgenstein

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I really don't like the buddha, sure life is suffering but sitting on your ass doing nothing but eating and drinking water is the best option? No desire for anything? No excitement? Fricking boring and stupid, Schopenhauer second option is better but eventually gets boring also.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >you can only have what you earn through labor
            guess we are going back to ooga booga caveman days, good luck on your reactionary quest to kill the golden goose but keep the eggs

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            you don't think people will eventually get tired of celebs and rich people now? you still want them to suck up useless homosexuals who barely contribute to society? We need more engineers, workers and doctors, not some kim Kardashian booga Black person influencers

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Engineers and doctors are only possible because enough workers were "exploited" to allow for a doctor or engineer to be trained, which consumes a lot of time that could have otherwise been spent picking crops or laying bricks or whatever stupid idea you have. Decades of malnourished Koreans still haven't sent the DPRK into space so your "theory" doesn't even work in practice

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Neo-Buddhism
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navayana
      ?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        from that very same page
        >While the term Navayāna is most commonly used in reference to the movement that Ambedkar founded in India, it is also (more rarely) used in a different sense, to refer to Westernized forms of Buddhism

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Buddha.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      anyone who thinks schopenhauer is similar to buddha is a certified midwit.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        schopenhauer himself confirmed midwit

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      it already has. its called troonydom. thats the direction neobuddhism goes

      Schopenhauer was a hindu

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    That’s just Christianity but without any of the Jesus/ Heaven stuff.

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would his ideas be a religion? Yeah he's right but that's bad. He just proved the world will always be of suffering and problems all the time and we have to deal with them for the rest of our lives looking for meaningless things to fill our voids. We're so fricked but who cares anyways.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, he merely has to mention evolution, and the suffering then has meaning. Suffering is the sculptor's chisel. And our very lives are the rock.

      As the weak, ugly, and unfit fall away, we are left with beauty.

      But the work will never be done, for all people, as they age, become weak, ugly, and unfit, for all people are doomed to die.

      It's just that some people leave behind offspring, and that offspring will go on to also suffer, but due to the glory of evolution, this death and suffering at least has a purpose.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        What if that purpose is fulfilled? What if humans reach to a point of being perfect immortal beings? What then? What will happen once we complete our evolutionarily process?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          it would be the same as nonexistence.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          it would be the same as nonexistence.

          we apes can't imagine the "what then". if we could those creatures wouldn't be the creatures you describe. its a completely hidden world from us. it must be by definition

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >he thinks the current course of human evolution is anything but dysgenic
        Everyone point and laugh

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          WHEE'LL SEE

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's the perfect religion because the will explains everything in the world and he has his rituals and solutions which are asceticism and aesthetic contemplation.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Don't you think the will was necessary for life anyways? If the will didn't exist, humans would just sit on there lazy asses and die without having kids. That's fricking dumb, what a dumb way to go. The will was evolved and put in place for a reason, for all living beings to create meaning on a rock. Like this was all meant to be by some greater force not god but even better that we can't comprehend or have any choice with.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Why would it be put in place for a reason? Who gives a shit about the meaning of humans on earth. No one seems to care what happens to us anyways.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            We should care, we need to care about ourselves and stop making our lives so miserable, I saw a video of a regular dude dad dying of suicide and It just seem like if people cared and were more empathetic, life would be much easier in the long run. We can always have the chance to make life better.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Isn't that the whole point of the will. It's not to make us happy. It's to survive. Happiness is fleeting. It never lasts for most people.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So it's over?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            A man is never happy, but spends his whole life in striving after something that he thinks will make him so; he seldom attains his goal, and when he does, it is only to be disappointed; he is mostly shipwrecked in the end, and comes into harbour with mast and rigging gone. And then, it is all one whether he is happy or miserable; for his life was never anything more than a present moment always vanishing; and now it is over.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Frick man, maybe he was right cause it just seems like the fate of most men, people like Napoleon was one of the greatest generals only to die alone in a homosexual island, so many great conquers, people etc always die and fall alone.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            hedonism and happiness, even when possible are not the purpose of life.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            He has solutions. Two of which are asceticism and aesthetic contemplation and my life at least has showed he is entirely correct. Don't chase happiness just try to make beauty the priority in your life. Try to live like an ascetic where beauty is his God. Whether this means going outside and enjoying the night sky or listening to good music or reading literature or watching life affirming movies.
            Try not to spend too much time inside your head. And don't do anything bad. No drugs. No drinking. No porn. No surfing. Just beauty and you will see your life change for the better.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The porn and vidya is the only shit i'll do for the rest of my life, it's too addicting even for my zoomer brain. I hate alcohol and rest of that stuff.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lock all your electronics away in a timed lock box. Everything. Easiest way to stop the addiction.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >The will was evolved and put in place for a reason, for all living beings to create meaning on a rock. Like this was all meant to be by some greater force not god but even better that we can't comprehend or have any choice with.
          That's just your biological prison deluding you.

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Schopenhauer's philosophy is the true cristianism

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Wagner in pic related.

    >R. says, half in fun and half in earnest: “Just wait—when I write my treatise on the philosophy of music, church and state will be abolished. Religion has assumed flesh and blood in a way quite different from these dogmatic forms—music, that is the direct product of Christianity, as is the saint, like Saint Francis of Assisi, who compensates for the whole church as well as for the whole world.”

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      He kind of succeeded tbf. Parsifal is possibly the greatest composition of all time, even Wagner's biggest haters unanimously agree. It's just not having any effect because normoid cattle instead prefers Hollywood and TikTok.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Thoughts on Rossini?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >A direct relation to morality has not as yet been generally ascribed to music. In fact music has even been judged as morally harmless. But that is just not so. Could an effeminate and frivolous taste remain without influence on a man’s morality? Both go hand in hand and act reciprocally upon each other. We could refer back to the Spartans, who forbade a certain type of music as injurious to morals. But instead, let us just think back to our own immediate past. With tolerable certainty we can state that those who have been inspired by Beethoven’s music have been more active and energetic citizens-of-state than those bewitched by Rossini, Bellini, and Donizetti, a class consisting for the most part of rich and lordly do-nothings.
          t. Wagner

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This is incredibly accurate and exactly why I love Rossini tbh.

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Haven't read him but didn't he read upanishads and buddhist lit?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Chuddhism

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    he was literally just a buddhist with a european twist, that's why no one really follows Schopenhauer's philosophy as a codified system. he didn't invent anything new

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah Schopenhauer kinda just sucks honestly, he only told how the world is but didn't really explain anything on how to deal with except being a buddha cuck or get into hobbies like a onions. Plato and Socrates has to be the best philosophers because at least they give you a sense of purpose and duty. What's Schopenhauer answer? Just die alone and be seen as a grumpy old homosexual no one liked, such a way to go.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        his own lifestyle was profoundly boring and regimented. went for a walk, took a bath, played the flute, lived alone and never married, and spent his wealth on restaurants. literally never deviated from this. if someone were to embrace his philosophy they would have no framework on how to live with these beliefs because Schopenhauer set no example unlike his idol Buddha

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >went for a walk, took a bath, played the flute, lived alone and never married, and spent his wealth on restaurants. literally never deviated from this.
          sounds based to me

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like he followed his philosophy exactly lol

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Sounds like he was a pratyekabuddha

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          That's literally every second successful philosopher, Kant was the same.

          It's how us autistics all live by the way, if the normies leave us alone. I do the same but swap out the flute for violin, restaurants with gooning to porn and write code instead of philosophy.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >gooning to porn
            You should stop that

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Strangely enough it actually makes my life better in a weird way. Not because it's a good habit, but because I find it puts a stop to negative repetitive thoughts. Like, I'll be chudding out thinking of things I don't want to be if I don't edge to porn, but if I spend three hours a day edging it sort of blanks my mind afterwards and I can focus on hobbies and activities in peace.

            It's probably doing a little damage, but it's less harmful than the anti-depressants or anti-psychotics I'd otherwise get prescribed by ZOG.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Holy shit dude learn some self control. You're literally saying you need to mildly moron yourself to not get bad thoughts.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's a vice like alcohol. I've gone three months without porn before and it's not like abstinence really improved my life.

            Schopenhauer would have a lot to say about gooning if he was around today I think. It literally is technology being utilized in a desperate attempt to sate the sexual manifestation of the will.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Give us wives then

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Control your urges. You don't need anyone. I haven't jerk offd in 2 years. Never had sex in my life

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            how convenient, the celibate preach celibacy as a virtue

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah because it is a virtue and I'm better than you

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Based but I read somewhere that that is not healthy. You could develop testicle cancer or something

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Wet dreams exist for a reason.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >restaurants with gooning to porn
            I think this is an important distinction anon.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not that anon, however, I travel and visit restaurants AND also goon to porn. All things in balance.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Plato and Socrates has to be the best philosophers because at least they give you a sense of purpose and duty.
        they created this purpose out of thin air, or rather their own farts

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          at least they weren't Buddhist hippie Black person like Schopenhauer, fricker leached off his health to be a neet Black person while frickers like me have to work, frick him and his defeatist philosophy

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Philosophy isn’t really for morons like you who can’t transcend self-help or construct a sentence to save their lives.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          go sucky on schopee pee pee all day, fricking buddha Black person piece of homosexualry

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s nice schizo-kun. For you, I recommend How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Please leave metaphysics alone for people with non-subhuman IQs, thanks.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            ur metaphysics isn't even real, just a meme science that was ruined by kant and Schopenhauer by being powdered white haired rich homosexuals.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That entire image speaks to a beauty, a frustration, something so holy and yet so dark within Schopenhauer. He was truly a person who shook the world, but shook it only as much a he wanted. No thunderous, hasty footsteps. But only the soft tapping as he paces, thinking harder than he ever should about problems he can never solve.

        Thus he suffers. Yet we benefit from not having to live his life. We are not Schopenhauer, and that makes us free.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is it worth reading The World as Will and Representation if I've read his essays? I don't agree with his philosophy at all but he is an eloquent writer with interesting thoughts

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Ignore his ethics. His metaphysics are the interesting part. Will and Representation is an accidental stumbling into hylomorphism except that Schopenhauer didn't make the connection to God's mind.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Mind if I ask what you don't agree with?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        everything

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anyone who understands schopenhauer is too smart to believe in religion, or too absorbed in christianity. it wont work

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    He discovered Christian metaphysics but without God. He's halfway there. Hence his pessimism.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      You couldn't even be bothered to read half a wikipedia article? Guy who praises Spinoza, Giordano Bruno, Plato, the Upanishads, and the Buddha, and says the church killed more people than any human sacrificing pagans, he's totally doing Christian metaphysics! Christer apologists are not sending their best

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        That's the funny part. He didn't realize it.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          I thought we had free will under Christianity

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            We do. Schopenhauer confused Will for divine will. God wills reality, including us.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            So when your child is kidnapped and sold to be a sex slave chained in a basement that was God doing it to me?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            God permitted it to happen.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Then he's an butthole? Black person Neil was right about one thing, a all powerful god and a good god can't coexist with each other seeing how the world is. He isn't really powerful or hes just not a good god, pick your poison.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's the point of God. You have to trust in God that He is all good and will make everything good in the end. Everything is ultimately for the good. That's faith in God. Humility to know that your limited perspective is flawed.

            If you think you can know what is "good" better than God, then you will live in hell. That is man's ultimate sin.

            Your choice.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Religion is such a disease, you'll find any ways to defend it even if it means people suffer moronadly for no reason and expect them to still suck on god teets, your definition of god is corrupted and fricked.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Too many capital letters. Too much "trust" in something that feels like a proto-government. Looks like a cult, smells like a cult. Praise Allah? Praise Zeus? Or just your specific god of your specific culture? Is he named Jesus? Hell in particular, or do you mean Hades or Nil or Sheol?

            The Norse Hel? Or do you mean the specifically Christian hell? And also, you mean Orthodox, right?

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The only point you make that could be valid is if you also agree with the post directly above yours, where that anon says stuff like "Nothing else in the legal, spiritual, or philosophical realm compares to the raw fact that evolution is an answer that displeases all of the above, yet still honors its promise to reward the ability to survive, live, and thrive."

            As if to say, "Evolution is god, and our desire to judge survival and success is inherently flawed, because what it takes to survive does not always look good. Yet it is good, because we survive at any cost."

            I know that's not what you mean, sadly, but if it was, that would be exactly the point. That we should not be trying to find any moral system at all, but instead, we should find a way to functionally survive, and most certainly, as idealistic beings with a mind and will, we should seek to minimize harm.

            But there's no need to minimize harm. Not for real. No, what we must actually do is survive, and if there's a sacrifice that must be made, let it be made, but let there be a very good reason for it on an evolutionary level.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He isn't really powerful or hes just not a good god
            Nah, i think MUH FREE WILL solves it. The privation theory of evil too, even the privation theory of evil inverted solves it
            >And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
            >Mark 10:18

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            A belief in reincarnation /transmigration/metempsychosis would explain such a (still admittedly horrific) event as this. It’s held by much of Greek philosophy and mysticism/mystery schools (Orphism, Pythagoreanism, Platonism, Neoplatonism), Hermeticism, the esoteric/heterodox early sect of Christianity (Gnosticism), the esoteric teachings of Judaism (Kabbalism), and of course the Eastern philosophies/religions (Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, broadly). Now, even exoteric/mainstream/orthodox (small-o) Christianity and Islam seem to loosely hold it, if you go by their major texts. Christianity has a second coming of Christ in the Apocalypse (lit. “Unveiling”) or End Times, and Islam likewise has Jesus (“the Prophet Isa”) returning at the End Times to wreak justice on unbelievers. Matthew 11:17 even has Jesus saying, “Elijah truly shall first come, and restore all things.”

            Now, a belief that humans have a relative degree of freedom implicit in their very creation, including freedom to do great evils and sins, and reincarnate/transmigrate after their incarnated life as humans, facing the fruits of their actions, desires, and results of their attachment to the world, makes more sense to me than the belief that a single, finite, earthly, temporal, limited life leads to recompense in an infinite, heavenly, intemporal, unlimited manner based JUST on the merits or crimes of one life.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I think the belief in the supernatural aspect itself is a mistake. Not to say I'm an atheist, but there's something fishy about sins, karma, morality, and ethics, that don't seem "objective."

            It's too relative. A wolf and a lamb cannot share the same ethics, right? Even the most philosophical lamb, and the most philosophical wolf, using all the logic in reality, would come to absolutely different conclusions, just due to what they were born as.

            So even the difference in ethics between a man and a woman, will end up being fundamentally different, and the difference in ethics between a man in 1800 and 1900 and 2000 and 2100 will be fundamentally different too, just as even the ethics of an asian man in China in the year 2020 would be different than the ethics of a white man in America in the 2020, just based on geographic location.

            So who is the objective judge of all these people and animals and plants? Who is looking at us and judging us in a way that is actually fair? Oh, THAT guy, huh? With his extremely pleasant position of infinitely powerful God of the universe, where he can just grin and know the future, the past, the present, and where risks, war, pain, and death, have no impact on his health and happiness?

            Here on Earth, stealing bread can be the difference between life and death, and having a grand and terrible war where millions die might be the difference between being a sovereign nation, and a slave state.

            Only raw, absolute, chemical-physical evolution of the tree of life, can really reward success in a consistent manner. Evolution alone seems to be the only objective judge that rewards based on actual ability to succeed in life. Nothing else in the legal, spiritual, or philosophical realm compares to the raw fact that evolution is an answer that displeases all of the above, yet still honors its promise to reward the ability to survive, live, and thrive.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            The problem is you are not thinking on a systems level. This is what I've noticed with many of you pseuds.
            On a systems level, a wolf will not hunt lambs to extinction. It is very rare in nature for animals to hunt another to extinction. There are exceptions such as human beings. Granted, let me reiterate, it is very rare.
            So right there we have determined a kind of general equilibrium or balance at play, which indeed shifts due to environmental fluctuations and alterations, but it does not lead to one side eradicating the other completely.
            >Evolution
            Neo-Darwinism is not the final answer to evolution. For example, there are decent arguments for evolution being driven by symbiosis and possessing mind-like characteristics, reminiscent of panpsychism. Evolution becomes a creative vitalistic force then. Moreover, there are decent arguments the Earth is a superorganism with some degree of cognition.
            >evolution is an answer that displeases all of the above, yet still honors its promise to reward the ability to survive, live, and thrive.
            Evolution is a lot more mysterious than your shitty soulless mechanistic interpretation. Mechanism and life are discontinuous; basically life is emergent which decouples from mechanism. Therefore, you cannot use mechanism to understand life. They are two different orders of logic.
            The problem with the psyche of pseuds like you is you immediately associate certain claims with various subcultures or modern movements. If I were to tell you, "It is possible the Druids and other ancient people were able to communicate with the Earth via tree worship," you would immediately associate that with cringey Wiccans of hippies. As a consequence, further dialogue with pseuds like you is futile.
            You've abandoned theism and then just jump onto the most banal alternative: modern scientism. You also scoff at the most ancient of human beliefs, animism, when in fact there may have been a shred of truth in it.
            If evolution were a processual god, then there is no doubt mankind was an evolutionary mistake and New Atheists and reductive physicalists are proof of it.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            "you pseuds"

            "pseuds like you"

            >Opinions discarded.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I thought I was in a different thread, so I was more abrasive than I needed to be.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you apologize, then I do find your post interesting. I just don't need the insults. Maybe one is fine, but I just felt like you were there to viciously attack me, like you had absolutely no respect for me.

            But I do have respect for you. You are not a fool. You are not a pseud. Many people are, I grant you that, but being mean-spirited just demoralizes me, so I'd rather discard your opinion that try to converse with you.

            However, if you are apologizing, then I accept it, and forgive you in full.

            Let me reply:

            No, I do not view this world as purely mechanistic. Or rather, I do. But ....there must be more. In Oyish, I have written a few posts mentioning how "The brain generates a mind, and the mind generates will."

            As if a raw, absolutely deterministic computer can, if given enough power, can actually come to life in a way that is as vivid as a soul can truly be. A passionate fire in my heart; a strange sparkle in my eyes, something that proves I'm actually alive.

            It must exist. I've seen that spark in the eyes of others. Our dreary, mechanical lives ...

            BUT WHY DO WE OBEY?

            The darkest truth is how MECHANICAL we act, when confronted with a religion, a government, our boss at a job, or even just a bully. A *charismatic* bully even, whom we somehow trust.

            People are so quick to obey. To take the path of least-resistance. As if many people really are the NPC-Hylic concept that I fear most. The path of least resistance is a scientific concept, which leads to deterministic cause-and-effect.

            But that just means one thing: To suffer, to struggle, to strive for an ideal, to make it real, THAT is the path of MOST resistance. The path that energy and matter would NEVER take if truly and absolutely DEAD-CHEMICAL.

            No, there must be more, but you are right: I will often think "Oh, that person mentioned God. Well, they're probably going to be a Christian and start quoting the Bible in a really cliche way." "Ah yes, that person is talking about leftist stuff. Let's see what they think of race and sex and socialis- yep, oh so typical."

            It feels so terribly repetitive sometimes, but do not fall for it. There ARE true people around, and they're more common than you think. Just look in the mirror, friend. You're not a fake. I'm not either. Solipsism is truly a dark evil.

            To be quite true, NPC-Hylicism is likely a fake idea entirely, and we really are all beautiful geniuses in our own way. But then again .... maybe not. We will just have to strive for an ideal.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            “Sure, sure, sure, sure…”, is my (admittedly condescending) response to what you’re saying, and, in fairness, not even entirely condescending — I get what you’re saying. But another, just as justified, rejoinder, keeping in line with such implicit “scientism” and materialism (in such lines as, “Only raw, absolute, chemical-physical evolution of the tree of life, can really reward success in a consistent manner. Evolution alone seems to be the only objective judge that rewards based on actual ability to succeed in life. etc.”, where empirical observations and theories centered around material existence and experience and the closely related abstraction of “science” are raised high and toted as uniquely privileged and perfect outlooks on reality) — such scientific truisms as the conservation of all matter and energy (no matter or energy empirically observable being able to be created or destroyed, out of or into nothingness, but only transformed, turned into another form), seem to support the hypothesis of consciousness being unable to be destroyed (or even created, which is another issue), but only transformed. The famed “hard problem of consciousness” is also totally insoluble according to modern materialistic scientific rationalism and reductionism, and, barring some insanely out-there philosophical-scientific breakthrough (which seems impossible of solving this issue in a feasible coherent way, according to simple self-intuitive reason, without itself becoming very different from its reductionistic axioms) that explains the emergence of this tricky “consciousness” from “matter,” seems indefinitely insoluble.

            Every empirical scientific observation and theory, from the law of gravity to the rate of acceleration of falling objects on Earth, to heliocentrism as a theory superseding geocentrism (and yet beyond that to the observation of even the sun itself as not a center of the universe but merely itself representing another point in the ever-wheeling universe), to Darwin’s theory of evolution, to Dalton’s theory of the atom, to Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity, to the findings and theories of quantum mechanics throwing even some of such earlier theories and observations into question, there is presupposed a mysterious consciousness that even ALLOWS for such theories to be formed, and observations to be made of the empirical universe which includes such supposed matter, energy, space and time. Yet the very consciousness observing and allowing for all this has never itself been satisfactorily and adequately explained in its nature and origins. Even the Yogachara Buddhists (the “mind-only” school of Buddhists) are giving a more satisfactory and plausible worldview and cosmology in the light of such an issue (of the consciousness/matter divide and problem), or, at minimum, a just-as-plausible explanation.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, I understand, and I think what I wrote in 108 will answer a lot of what you've said just now. But I wrote that post before I saw 101, so let me answer you just briefly.

            Essentially, I believe that there is a dark mechanism to this reality, one that is exactly as binding, deterministic, non-free-will, non-living, and as solipsistic as possible. The ultimate evil, then, is this concept. But I think that this is the actual state of chemical-physical reality.

            I do not think there is "another realm" where magic is real, or where dreams happen, or where a god sits on a golden throne, and watches us while he eats popcorn. No, that would be far too easy.

            This horrific struggle of life then, of evolution, even if it started mechanically....WHO are you? WHO am I? Why even ask, if not to DEMAND an answer from this dark, faceless reality?

            If determinism is true, then determinism is our ENEMY. If reality-as-a-lifeless-mechanism is true, then LET LIFE BE LOVE.

            Let there be a reason for all this. A purpose behind all this. I asked, but I didn't get an answer. Reality just stayed silent. The stars flickered for a moment, and I realized I wasn't gonna get an answer at all. No, I wondered, WHY WON'T THE UNIVERSE OR GOD JUST ANSWER ME THIS ONE QUESTION?

            WHY

            DO

            I

            EXIST?

            But then I realized .... whose voice was I waiting for? There are so many voices out there that I wasn't listening to. YOU. ME. My family. My neighbors. My friends. Even my enemies. The crickets at night, the wind in the trees.

            It was speaking. I was listening.

            Here we both are, united in conversation, and aren't WE the ones who are coming up with answers? Is this the truth of "god"?

            Not god as an earth-flooding, thunder-bolt-flinging magical carpenter with one eye and a raven, whom has eight arms and a magical staff that turns to a snake. No, THIS is god.

            This conversation throughout time and space, the quest for answers, and the act of life itself. To communicate, to act, to think, to sense, to live, to be one of so many billions of living things throughout time ....

            This cannot be fully mechanical. Yet, I will not accept falsity. The answer must be true. It looks fully mechanical. Yet I defy. I will always defy, but I will never lie. So that does indeed present terrible difficulties in this quest. Thus we suffer.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes it all makes sense now, life is god itself, the things we take advantage and our system is very godly indeed. This is how we live, there isn't a other way.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Well, in post

            If you apologize, then I do find your post interesting. I just don't need the insults. Maybe one is fine, but I just felt like you were there to viciously attack me, like you had absolutely no respect for me.

            But I do have respect for you. You are not a fool. You are not a pseud. Many people are, I grant you that, but being mean-spirited just demoralizes me, so I'd rather discard your opinion that try to converse with you.

            However, if you are apologizing, then I accept it, and forgive you in full.

            Let me reply:

            No, I do not view this world as purely mechanistic. Or rather, I do. But ....there must be more. In Oyish, I have written a few posts mentioning how "The brain generates a mind, and the mind generates will."

            As if a raw, absolutely deterministic computer can, if given enough power, can actually come to life in a way that is as vivid as a soul can truly be. A passionate fire in my heart; a strange sparkle in my eyes, something that proves I'm actually alive.

            It must exist. I've seen that spark in the eyes of others. Our dreary, mechanical lives ...

            BUT WHY DO WE OBEY?

            The darkest truth is how MECHANICAL we act, when confronted with a religion, a government, our boss at a job, or even just a bully. A *charismatic* bully even, whom we somehow trust.

            People are so quick to obey. To take the path of least-resistance. As if many people really are the NPC-Hylic concept that I fear most. The path of least resistance is a scientific concept, which leads to deterministic cause-and-effect.

            But that just means one thing: To suffer, to struggle, to strive for an ideal, to make it real, THAT is the path of MOST resistance. The path that energy and matter would NEVER take if truly and absolutely DEAD-CHEMICAL.

            No, there must be more, but you are right: I will often think "Oh, that person mentioned God. Well, they're probably going to be a Christian and start quoting the Bible in a really cliche way." "Ah yes, that person is talking about leftist stuff. Let's see what they think of race and sex and socialis- yep, oh so typical."

            It feels so terribly repetitive sometimes, but do not fall for it. There ARE true people around, and they're more common than you think. Just look in the mirror, friend. You're not a fake. I'm not either. Solipsism is truly a dark evil.

            To be quite true, NPC-Hylicism is likely a fake idea entirely, and we really are all beautiful geniuses in our own way. But then again .... maybe not. We will just have to strive for an ideal.

            , you already seem to posit as an axiom (or at least suggest you believe in this):

            >The brain generates a mind, and the mind generates will.

            When the very first part of this sentence (“the brain generates a mind”) is already sloppy thinking and a big leap-of-faith, no less faith for being a supposedly “scientific” as opposed to a “religious belief.” Purpleness of my posts aside (they’re extremely overwritten and pretentious, a bad habit of mine when I’ve gotten a few drinks in me and feel like pontificating), they still pretty nicely outline the problems with such a belief (a reductionstic belief reducing “mind” to “matter/brain” in line with philosophical schools like eliminative materialism). One could, with just as much proof, assert that it is in fact “mind” which generates a “brain” — which, counterintuitively as it might sound, is actually closer to being “empirically” true, as we “experience our own mind” before we ever even experience and conceptualize such phenomena as “a brain” — all this put in such autistic quotes, as arguably we even experience our own consciousness in a way that could be said to be either pre-empirical and trans-empirical, as the consciousness is the very condition for such experiences/concepts as matter, energy, space, time and information (MESTI) to even occur. Making this a far greater mystery than you seem to think.

            Even a neutral monism (in the neat middle of philosophies like reductionstic eliminative materialism (reducing all the matter) and idealism/schools like Yogachara Buddhism/Advaita Vedanta) is possible, or something like Cartesian dualism, or, yet further, even something close to a midway between these two (Cartesian dualism and neutral monism) is possible like of the ancient Indian philosophical school of Samkhya, where both purusha, a supreme consciousness or animating-principle, and prakriti, or the base material-principle, both coexist, the purusha animates and transforms the prakriti, and, in some Tantric schools/interpretations, the “Purusha” and “Prakriti” are precisely interdependent poles which need each other for their existence and evolution and interact in a sort of divine-universal-play.

            Far out as it sounds, any of these roughly delineated schools of thought or mysticism could be just as likely as the eliminative-materialism you seem to hold to.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Indeed the idea that "the brain generates a mind and a mind generates a will," is less than an axiom, less than a leap-of-faith, but is a mere wish I have. But let that wish be true.

            My experience with Hinduism began at the Gunas, which seem similar to purusha/prakriti.

            The three Gunas are: Tamas, Rajas, and Sattva.

            You should look them up yourself, but to summarize briefly, tamas indicates dead matter, or void, and a lack of movement. Rajas is a tier above, and indicates energy, movement, chemical reactions. And sattva indicates information, truth, vibration, purity.

            Death, life, and truth, are the most simple forms of these concepts, in the same order. But I know vulgar Hinduism will often list them as "obviously tamas is evil! like stealing and lying, and rajas is like gross sex eating killing to eat! And sattva is obedience to the law of course."

            From my research, I notice that people see little VALUE in the concept of tamas or rajas, like they are "more base," and therefore somehow bad, compared to Sattva, which is held as a nearly impossible ideal.

            No, I think these things create balance, and I think that this makes much more sense, so when you read about the Gunas elsewhere, please be fair to tamas and rajas.

            However, these metaphysical concepts are only ideas. The truth must lay in chemical-physical reality. That's what I really think. But also in "sattva," which is not chemical-physical. Yet, it MUST be real for it to be actually TRUE, and not just a mere wish. A man is defined by their limits. And so are all things.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Death, life, and truth, are the most simple forms of these concepts, in the same order. But I know vulgar Hinduism will often list them as "obviously tamas is evil! like stealing and lying, and rajas is like gross sex eating killing to eat! And sattva is obedience to the law of course."

            >From my research, I notice that people see little VALUE in the concept of tamas or rajas, like they are "more base," and therefore somehow bad, compared to Sattva, which is held as a nearly impossible ideal.

            >No, I think these things create balance, and I think that this makes much more sense, so when you read about the Gunas elsewhere, please be fair to tamas and rajas.

            Sonny, you don’t have to lecture me. What you’re describing is basically the broadly Tantric schools of Hinduism, which includes schools like Kashmir Shaivism and Shaktism.

            >Indeed the idea that "the brain generates a mind and a mind generates a will," is less than an axiom, less than a leap-of-faith, but is a mere wish I have. But let that wish be true.
            I could temporarily pretend to let this wish be true for the sake of an argument/hypothetical/devil’s-advocate-consideration, but in real life I still wouldn’t let that sloppy reasoning or leap-of-faith take place unquestioned.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, don't assume it's true.

            Perhaps I only say it to appease people who need to believe in "something." There are so many people who talk about gods, or spirituality, or some sort of soul, and I just can't let that go unanswered. I don't agree with them, but I don't want to be a pure materialist, with nothing to show for it.

            If they ask for a soul, a god, a form of intrinsic meaning or purpose to life or their existence, what do I say? "Nope. We're actually just machines that evolved by chance. And chance isn't real. Determinism is."

            That is what I want to say. But the honest plea from their hearts must be answered. So I say the most realistic thing I can, which is just that I wish that it is possible for a computer-machine to think so hard, so deeply, so beautifully, that it is able to generate a True Mind.

            A soul, a spirit, a ghost in the machine, something that is beyond our raw physical existence. A philosophical or spiritual meaning, something that makes these people able to live without fear. Dogmatic atheism is a word I use, despite being an "atheist," because I refuse this dogma. If only there WAS a god of love in the heavens above, to hear our plea and free us from being machines.

            So in the end, I am only being a devil's advocate, but the devil in this case is god, or a soul. The only condition I seek is that my answer is actually true. So to make it true, I must generate a mind, and with that mind, generate a will. It's a wish I make, and a wish that my mind will grant, if at all possible. A True Mind, written in the same capital letters that "God" or "He" is written with. True Mind. Something sacred.

            But not necessarily true or real. But then is our quest to make it so? Are we, as mere mortal animals, meant to generate a mind? A will? A soul? A god? A truth? Any of the above or something analogous? All I can do is write a list of things people wish were real, and answer each one with an answer I hope pleases them, without a hint of falsity or wrongness. But the more I try, the more I feel like I'm slipping into a point beyond truth and into the darkness.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think it's that deep at this point, we're just incredibly smart animals. Do other animals believe or need a god? Do they care about space or the universe? Do they know what it is? Does it know of a soul or a truth? No, it simply seeks to survive, take care of their kin and die, just like every other being. I think we're too smart for our own good and too powerful in our galaxy considering we are the only intelligent species that we know of in this fricking galaxy man. Shit is beyond our control and comprehension.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That girl in your image is in such a deep state of absolute bliss virtual-reality, that I really can't help but be jealous of her. For her to deny reality, and live fully within a dreamstate of her choice, and to even have some nice drugs pumped into her, as if to clearly state "the human population is high enough, so if you want to do nigh-lethal pleasure causing drugs while experiencing the most dark and forbidden pleasures possible, go right ahead."

            And she just plugs herself in and relaxes as she helplessly pisses herself, lost deep in this false heaven of infinite orgasms.

            Wireheads. Raw, filthy animals whose short lives speak for themselves. Born today, dead tomorrow. Meaningless, for to live without struggle, strife, and ultimate suffering, is to NOT live at all. A virtual human in a virtual reality, for she is not even a real person. She is just an anime girl, and not even this is real. It's just text you're reading. Oh yes, her blissful pleasure is as real to her as it is to me. And that's absolutely false and 100% unreal.

            But oh how jealous I am.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            This will be our reality soon, imagine the profits if people could sell this too. Only pay a sum amount of money to get into the pleasure pod and be desperate to use it. Oh what a dream.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yep. To be the desk-attendant to the pod, watching a girl sign up for an entire hour, having no idea what she's about to experience. I just play it cool, letting her sign the consent forms and stuff. I make sure to a good look at her face, how she expresses her emotions as I explain the process to her, how she's only slightly blushing. The state of her eyes. The purity of her smile. Clearly it's her first time.

            She goes in, and I just pass the time watching mere videos on my work computer. I don't dare enter the pod myself. But of course the girl was cute. And so naive. I know I'm getting turned on thinking about what she's experiencing, but I just deny those feelings, knowing that I ought to act professional, considering I'm just a desk-jocky who has the forms they sign.

            But the part I love most comes next. The door opens and she's walking out, and towards me to return the equipment and sign the "I survived" waivers. I feel a hot feeling as I see her body visibly shivering with such an intensity. Her cheeks are bright red, and even though the machine has a dryer built in, first-timers always piss themselves, and the stain is obvious. She can't stop shaking as she signs the form, and I notice she clearly doesn't even know how to sign her name. It's just the first letter, and then a bunch of scribbles. What a fool. What a naive fool.

            I look at her again, and her hair is disheveled, her eyes look cloudy, and ....where is the purity of her smile? I can't know what virtual-dream she picked, privacy reasons of course, but according to the number of consent forms, it was clearly something absolutely hostile to her soul. Something so dark and foul that I wouldn't even want to know. All I need is to see those vacant eyes, and that broken smile. There it is.

            So adorable.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            “Sure, sure, sure, sure…”, is my (admittedly condescending) response to what you’re saying, and, in fairness, not even entirely condescending — I get what you’re saying. But another, just as justified, rejoinder, keeping in line with such implicit “scientism” and materialism (in such lines as, “Only raw, absolute, chemical-physical evolution of the tree of life, can really reward success in a consistent manner. Evolution alone seems to be the only objective judge that rewards based on actual ability to succeed in life. etc.”, where empirical observations and theories centered around material existence and experience and the closely related abstraction of “science” are raised high and toted as uniquely privileged and perfect outlooks on reality) — such scientific truisms as the conservation of all matter and energy (no matter or energy empirically observable being able to be created or destroyed, out of or into nothingness, but only transformed, turned into another form), seem to support the hypothesis of consciousness being unable to be destroyed (or even created, which is another issue), but only transformed. The famed “hard problem of consciousness” is also totally insoluble according to modern materialistic scientific rationalism and reductionism, and, barring some insanely out-there philosophical-scientific breakthrough (which seems impossible of solving this issue in a feasible coherent way, according to simple self-intuitive reason, without itself becoming very different from its reductionistic axioms) that explains the emergence of this tricky “consciousness” from “matter,” seems indefinitely insoluble.

            Every empirical scientific observation and theory, from the law of gravity to the rate of acceleration of falling objects on Earth, to heliocentrism as a theory superseding geocentrism (and yet beyond that to the observation of even the sun itself as not a center of the universe but merely itself representing another point in the ever-wheeling universe), to Darwin’s theory of evolution, to Dalton’s theory of the atom, to Einstein’s theories of general and special relativity, to the findings and theories of quantum mechanics throwing even some of such earlier theories and observations into question, there is presupposed a mysterious consciousness that even ALLOWS for such theories to be formed, and observations to be made of the empirical universe which includes such supposed matter, energy, space and time. Yet the very consciousness observing and allowing for all this has never itself been satisfactorily and adequately explained in its nature and origins. Even the Yogachara Buddhists (the “mind-only” school of Buddhists) are giving a more satisfactory and plausible worldview and cosmology in the light of such an issue (of the consciousness/matter divide and problem), or, at minimum, a just-as-plausible explanation.

            (Where modern scientific reductionistic materialism, exemplified by such schools in cognitive philosophy like eliminative materialism held and expounded by High-Priests-of-the-New-Reductionism Daniel Dennett, hold all to be reducible to matter and mind/consciousness/qualia an epiphenomenon of matter or an illusion, schools like Yogachara Buddhism would hold the “mind” to be the only reality and matter/the observed empirical universe as the epiphenomenon or illusion of mind).

            Now, you bring up the (relative) relativism of morality across different cultures as a critique of the supposed “reincarnationist model” where one’s consciousness gets indefinitely reincarnated to suffer or enjoy the fruits of one’s “sins” or “virtues.” Of course, and to concede a point, cliched words like “sins” and “virtues” were just being used as a shorthand. To expand it, one could say one simply reincarnates to experience the corresponding qualities-of-experience one introduced to the world and to others (as if to preserve the inherent “parity” or “balance” of the universe, which general tendency is a surprisingly consistent observation of physics — the tendency to preserve balance, parity, or reciprocity). Supposing one gives suffering to others, for instance, one has to receive this suffering back (just as in the generally preserved Newtonian law — any action generates an equal and opposite reaction). Which is a simple restating of the famous “law of karma” of Eastern religions, and from which you could even easily engineer the just as famous “Golden Rule” of Western ethics and of Christianity.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            We do

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    You are what you are by force of the will, not by the fates or the deterministic nature of the material world. You will be what you wills to be. Is that religious enough for you?

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I am certain Schopenhauer's thought was incorporated into religion, particularly Buddhist theology, centuries before he was alive.

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Being a bitter homosexual is quite far from spiritual enlightenment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *