What is philosophy? A product of social retardation.

Is it a coincidence that every philosopher is a loner? What causes a person to be a loner? Poor socialization is what causes a person to be a loner. Poor socialization results in very poor intuition as intuition is entirely to do with the social and taking effective action as opposed to sitting in a room thinking and writing.

Philosophy is the formalization of knowledge as a feeble attempt at compensating for very poor intuitive ability and in turn possibly gaining some social mobility and sway in life. It is the intellectual version of a surrogate activity for life, where the average nerd will settle for playing video games. But fundamentally the motivation is the same: social retardation. The average person has decent to great intuition in regards to life within the modern social world around them. The philosopher tries to gain a handle and subsequently mobility through putting reality in a box ("hard knowledge"). Ultimately this is just a distraction.

Further substantiating this is the simple observable fact that the lonelier people are the more critical they are of the world and people around them. The outsider criticizes the group, for he is outside of it, naturally drawn to it yet doesn't understand how to connect and be comfortable within it. Profound loneliness leads to him criticizing huge abstract groups of people despite in reality knowing nothing detailed about them personally, all the way down to being obsessed with the private lives of others.

Profound loneliness combined with narcissism seen in every case produces a man who spends his entire life criticizing everyone but himself. For him self-criticism is never genuine and only ever done to clear his conscience or please a crowd of his naive followers. In rare instances he will turn this into a business, becoming the rebel leader, selling aspects of narcissism to other men with a need to feel as though they are never wrong, special, and that they and their inadequacies were never the source of their own dismay.

Yes....you are correct.
Philosopher are losers and they only criticize others...
Loneliness is a terrible thing.

Good thing you are nowhere close to being one.

*Laughs*

  

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

A Joker calling-card.
Make a statement to get the eyes on you.

Some hunger for emotional gifts....others for simple sight.

Satyr wrote:

A Joker calling-card.
Make a statement to get the eyes on you.

Some hunger for emotional gifts....others for simple sight.

Actually the post in question was a compliment to your response.

You're not very good at taking compliments, are you?

stargazer wrote:

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

I'm glad to be an inspiration to you.

Just think of me as your own personal role model.

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

I'm glad to be an inspiration to you.

Just think of me as your own personal role model.

I DO think of you as my role model. Something about your constant inane chattering and obliviousness that makes me appreciate the incisiveness of your 95% percentile world destruction statistic.

Don't stop talking. I like the sound of white noise.

stargazer wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

I'm glad to be an inspiration to you.

Just think of me as your own personal role model.

I DO think of you as my role model. Something about your constant inane chattering and obliviousness that makes me appreciate the incisiveness of your 95% percentile world destruction statistic.

Don't stop talking. I like the sound of white noise.

Ah, your mean post is now wounding me. I'm so very hurt right now.....

I think that after reading your post with it making me so very sad that I will now have to get some tissues to wipe the tears away.     

By the way, what are you philosophical exactly?

I don't see you writing or posting very much.


Are you a philosophical stargazer perhaps?

Thinking is sooo overrated.

Loneliness is the only outcome.
The best way to know others is by not knowing yourself.
And if you know yourself, you might be a narcissist.

Always something nasty about something the other does that scares us.

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

I'm glad to be an inspiration to you.

Just think of me as your own personal role model.

I DO think of you as my role model. Something about your constant inane chattering and obliviousness that makes me appreciate the incisiveness of your 95% percentile world destruction statistic.

Don't stop talking. I like the sound of white noise.

Ah, your mean post is now wounding me. I'm so very hurt right now.....

I think that after reading your post with it making me so very sad that I will now have to get some tissues to wipe the tears away.     

By the way, what are you philosophical exactly?

I don't see you writing or posting very much.

Because your perception is solely quantifiable. The less you see, the less you pay attention. Your mind is adolescent, based on popular standards of excess, and the most capturing image or word that draws your attention, suffices to be remembered. A chipmunk has a more focused attention span than you.

There are a few members on here who don't post very much or as much as i do, and they are smart.

stargazer wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

LaughingMan wrote:

stargazer wrote:

Ah yes, i love those forum members who take a long hiatus, only to return and share inanities and simplistic self-defeating projections.

It fills me with the hope that time can really heal all wounds.

I'm glad to be an inspiration to you.

Just think of me as your own personal role model.

I DO think of you as my role model. Something about your constant inane chattering and obliviousness that makes me appreciate the incisiveness of your 95% percentile world destruction statistic.

Don't stop talking. I like the sound of white noise.

Ah, your mean post is now wounding me. I'm so very hurt right now.....

I think that after reading your post with it making me so very sad that I will now have to get some tissues to wipe the tears away.     

By the way, what are you philosophical exactly?

I don't see you writing or posting very much.

Because your perception is solely quantifiable. The less you see, the less you pay attention. Your mind is adolescent, based on popular standards of excess, and the most capturing image or word that draws your attention, suffices to be remembered. A chipmunk has a more focused attention span than you.

There are a few members on here who don't post very much or as much as i do, and they are smart.

Yeah, yeah...whatever.

Don't you have something to do like fiddling your fingers quietly in a corner somewhere?

Burn.

Lockland wrote:

Is it a coincidence that every philosopher is a loner? What causes a person to be a loner? Poor socialization is what causes a person to be a loner. Poor socialization results in very poor intuition as intuition is entirely to do with the social and taking effective action as opposed to sitting in a room thinking and writing.

Philosophy is the formalization of knowledge as a feeble attempt at compensating for very poor intuitive ability and in turn possibly gaining some social mobility and sway in life. It is the intellectual version of a surrogate activity for life, where the average nerd will settle for playing video games. But fundamentally the motivation is the same: social retardation. The average person has decent to great intuition in regards to life within the modern social world around them. The philosopher tries to gain a handle and subsequently mobility through putting reality in a box ("hard knowledge"). Ultimately this is just a distraction.

Further substantiating this is the simple observable fact that the lonelier people are the more critical they are of the world and people around them. The outsider criticizes the group, for he is outside of it, naturally drawn to it yet doesn't understand how to connect and be comfortable within it. Profound loneliness leads to him criticizing huge abstract groups of people despite in reality knowing nothing detailed about them personally, all the way down to being obsessed with the private lives of others.

Profound loneliness combined with narcissism seen in every case produces a man who spends his entire life criticizing everyone but himself. For him self-criticism is never genuine and only ever done to clear his conscience or please a crowd of his naive followers. In rare instances he will turn this into a business, becoming the rebel leader, selling aspects of narcissism to other men with a need to feel as though they are never wrong, special, and that they and their inadequacies were never the source of their own dismay.

Though this doesn't whisper in people's ear, It seems rational. I'm not saying it's always the case, but I can see the logic behind it. But even if so, who cares? I'd rather be a loner, than some superficial bland socialite. I'm an introvert by nature, so I need to have time to myself in order to re-charge. But, of course, I like company, too.

Is it better to be a dull socialite, extrovert? or to be a deep thinking, interesting introvert/loner?

And at the same time don't make it an excuse.

There it is: nothing else can be conferred. Do you think he will concede that per his reasoning that it follows as to why niggers and women aren't into thinking?

Philosophy is born out of inactivity. Most often it's the inactive man's way to having a sense of purpose and power (control), and attaining higher status in spite of his lack of interaction (experience) with the outside world. Generally a philosophy can be reduced to a simpler and more straightforward matter like politics or psychology - at other times it's pure fantasy. Each philosopher's primary fixations are an indication of his personal issues (where his major anxieties lie tells the story of his actual motivations), which are fundamentally a matter of psychology, and are better revealed through the passage of time (the more he babbles). Unknowingly, the capital "P" philosopher philosophizes as an ineffective way to try to resolve unresolved issues from his childhood which have to do primarily with relationships (which I'll explain in the next section). The reason philosophy (mental masturbation over grandiose ideas) never ends is because of man's ability to endlessly reframe subjects in whatever way he so desires.

Ever wonder why 99% of philosophers are male? Males have special challenges in life which necessitate more active involvement in their upbringing, particularly on the part of the father. Consequently an underfathered boy will experience extraordinary anxieties in the face of certain life challenges. At their core such challenges are social: one's ability to relate to the same sex as well as the opposite sex. Typically underfathered boys develop an antagonistic (stunted, primitive) relationship with other males and are thus unable to bond with them as males normally would, and if otherwise unequipped he will try to avoid them rather than fight them head on. Such boys, especially the ones unable to take on other boys head on as a primitive way of mitigating their anxieties around male-male relationships, will begin to develop the mentality of a tyrant as that's all that's left him as a pathway to resolution and a sense of power and control in life, at which point he develops another need which in order to be resolved requires that he actually become the thing, or at least fantasize about being the thing - it is out of that inability to relate and resultant powerlessness that we get the typical philosopher: the man who tries to put the world (really his own personal issues) in a box (prison). You see, a tyrant gets to control everything, but does so at a distance (impersonal rather than personal; also: objectifying and thus dehumanizing rather than subjective-subjective and humanizing), thus he needn't relate with those things and thus needn't ever go through the pains of resolving the issues which are the source of his anxiety. Objectification is dehumanizing and dehumanization is a mechanism of avoidance which at its core is about the self, identity and an ability to relate.

A prime example of the consequences of underfathering is the anarchist cult leader on Youtube. The underfathered male can't shut up and feels a strong desire to control (use) other males rather than truly, honestly, connect with them, especially the more intelligent kind of tyrant. The less intelligent kind uses his fists instead, but both are similar in that they each have the psychology of a tyrant, and to what degree that part of them is cultivated depends on a number of factors.

We live in a world of underfathered males, hence the extreme hyper-competitiveness that has developed on the Internet, and the joblessness, sexlessness and lack of comradery and brotherhoods in society at large. Ultimately this is a matter of identity; without significant involvement by the same-sex parent or another same-sex adult one will experience a life of insecurities, objectification and unstable relations.

It all starts with the basics.

Philosophers are intellegient. Intelligient people get bored easily.

Therefore they don't invest in people because they would become bored of it. So they spend their time in intellectual pursuits.

Every now and then a philosopher will invest in a person they feel is special. Of course, because humans have no empathy or kindnes (they are only simple primates) that special friend will of course betray or abandon them.

You must realise humans are simple primates and philosophers just don't fit in with their culture. Take a minute and look at the other primates, their lives are boring, they are workaholics who never do anything entertaining or interesting. Such a life is of no interest to the philosopher. Therefore the philosopher has a tough time finding anyone outside of there to maintain a friendship. The philosopher usually has no friends and dies on a lonely beach, to born into a new family of religious types (because religious people breed the most often, the world is overpopulated with them.)

Basics...intelligent people are more aware.
More awareness is an exposure to more possibilities.
This results in increased suffering.

Satyr wrote:

Basics...intelligent people are more aware.
More awareness is an exposure to more possibilities.
This results in increased suffering.

I see the logic, however what about this.

More possibilities = more creative potential = more variety = less suffering

What if a dumb person only has one possibility, and that suffering is the possibility. Would having more possibilities help them not hurt them?

Yes, however the world is not that balanced. Most of the possibilities have been explored, therefore it leads to redundancy, boredom. So your statement rings true.

More possibilities means less control, less certainty.

More self-awareness means less interest in possibilities.

Ignorance is bliss.

Satyr wrote:

More possibilities means less control, less certainty.

More self-awareness means less interest in possibilities.

Ignorance is bliss.

While it seems true, ignorance is bliss, let us seperate "ignorance" from ignorant people.

Ignorance (in this context) implies a kind of mindless egolessness, non thought, blissfully unaware.

Ignorant person implies babbling heads who talk about meaningless things, and go about their day to day lives on their slave jobs. I would not describe such persons as happy.

I would say that intelligient persons are more capable of true ignorance than ignorant people, because ignorant people have religious minds. Wheras an intelligient person knows it's all meaningless and can be more comfortable in their ignorance, ignorante people are consumed by their worries and religious concerns (paranoid of being judged by God over trivialities, like being punished for sex and gluttony.)

What?

Being aware means you can discriminate, and not waste your time on childish shit.
Rejecting God is not ignorance, dear.
I know what shit is before I reject it as a food product.

Satyr wrote:

What?

Being aware means you can discriminate, and not waste your time on childish shit.
Rejecting God is not ignorance, dear.
I know what shit is before I reject it as a food product.

I said intelligent persons are capable of being comfortable with ignorance, not that they were actually ignorant.

The definition of "ignorance" I provided stated a kind of "mindlessness."

In the statement "Ignorance is bliss" it implies a kind of mindlessness is bliss.
That's what I got from it. "Mindlessness is bliss."

If you were to apply the word in relation to religious people, it would say "Being ignorant is bliss" which doesn't quite roll off the tongue.
"Being ignorant is bliss" doesn't seem to ring true. Ignorant refering to "closemindedness", rather than "mindlessness".

Being intelligent does not mean you have the courage to accept what you become aware of.

Intelligence is but a factor in what we call wisdom.

Mindfulness is to be comfortable in your knowing.

You are relating ignorance to the Hellenic forgetfulness - Lethe - in which case to be mindful is to be re-collecting what you are - Know Thyself.