Is there any other subject or viewpoint in philosophy ? I try to tell myself I'm an absurdist, I've accepted life's meaninglessness and go on in spite of it. But surprisingly it hasn’t been a positive, uplifting experience.. I have experiences and feel things and that makes me think some thoughts.

I feel like there must be something else that I'm not getting despite having 40 years of life and becoming an expert on the subject via YouTube..

I also like Buddhism but I don’t study or practice it.

I also feel like the worst thing anyone can do is to go searching for deeper meaning. Like better to be Hitler obviously. If I could go back and do it all over again I'd try to be even stupider.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqecUu7gJU4

Science sans conscience n'est qu'une ruine de l'âme

A manual cunt

We live in a society. My iq is 200 and everyone I meet is so slowwwwww. I joined Mensa and I feel like I’ve found a second home. No they aren’t as smart as me they are just equally as bitter at the world for being blessed with the curse of intelligence.

I met a girl at a speed dating Mensa event. I told her my iq and she asked if she could come over. I was nervous but I figured she probably wanted to see the illegal Lego building techniques I use in the privacy of my own home. She went home later that night after she lingered around for what seemed like hours. She must be trying to steal all the knowledge in my house.

Why is it so hard to have an iq of 200. I don’t expect anyone here to know because I’m the smartest person in the world.

Cuz i got that Cash Money Hypothesis

New logic just dropped

All M are P. All S are M. Therefore, All S are P. Is valid

But All S are M. All M are P. Therefore, All S are P. Isn't!

This mega-brain eye-opening insight kindly brought to you by a user flaired for logic in askphilosophy (madness starts here).

Indeed, since all featherless bipeds are men, and all chicken are featherless bipeds, all chicken are men.

But lo and behold, we can save Plato's humanity, because even though all chicken are featherless bipeds, and all featherless bipeds are men, that doesn't mean all chickens are men!!

Fuck you barrel piss man. IF ONLY PLATO KNEW; HE JUST HAD TO SAY IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. D: D: D:

1 like = 1 prayer for featherless bipeds

1. There exists the political "right"
2. That implies the rest is political "wrong"
3. checkmate communists

premise A: abortion is bad premise B: when there are more people there is more abortion happening

we need to stop people from aborting babies but we can't force them or murder them because thats bad too. we need to stop them before they even exist. therefore we should commit more abortion to stop these potential people from aborting more potential people than we ever could.

or in other words: wouldn't it be more ethical in an utilitarian sense to abort a baby if there is a chance that the baby could grow into a woman that will abort two or more babies?

this paradox proves that because we can't rule out premise B, because we can't fully control it, that premise A must be false which means: abortion can't be bad.

q.e.d.

Bro why the fuck are all these garbage “philosophers” like Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Camus, Sartre, and Marcus Aurelius so loved by tiktokers. They all just wrote the exact same fucking thing. “Hurr durr go be yourself and shit”. I don’t think we need like five different people saying “go be yourself” just using different flowery language.

Like a lot of people, I had a phase where I watched a lot of atheism and debunking content on youtube. There was one video about the afterlife I came across which stuck with me. Even as a kid, I knew this reasoning was shitty and anyone who acted this smug deserved a kick in the nuts. I'm so glad this era of atheism is over.

Click this link for cock and ball torture: https://youtu.be/s3AdXaefJ3M?si=mRkg5DyU2TEnnd6e

Title reverb

If we take the different possible scenarios of causality (that I can think of):

* Caused by itself

* Infinite chain of causality

* First cause not having a cause

All of these seem irrational and paradoxal.

I'm wondering what you guys think

Dile

Following in the visionary footsteps of Ivan Illich’s crusade to de-school society, I propose we tackle a truly pressing matter: the indoctrination we’ve received regarding eyewear. Yes, eyewear the ultimate fashion accessory disguised as a medical necessity. We’ve sensationalized a disability, turning it into a badge of honor or, worse, a misguided aesthetic statement. What is the ethos of this madness? Is it some warped philosophy of genetic compromise? "Here’s 20/200 vision, but at least you can play the cello"?

Consider the hordes of people who now willingly don glasses without needing them. Why? Is it for aesthetics? A misguided attempt at “ascetics”? Are rimmed lenses the new sackcloth? Have we, as a society, agreed that disability is beautiful and empowering? Hardly. Try showing up with glasses that are too big for your face suddenly, you’re Bubbles from Trailer Park Boys, not the hero of a progressive movement. And hearing aids? Don’t hold your breath for the next runway model to rock a pair of those.

But let’s not stop at the surface. The deeper issue here is our cultural obsession with intelligence a fetish, really, for looking the part of the intellectual. Eyewear has become the ultimate symbol of intellectual pride, a form of virtue signaling so transparent it’s practically a monocle. Wearing glasses, even without a prescription, screams, “I read books! never mind if those books are coffee table decor.

What if we stopped using intelligence as a weapon or a status symbol? What if we put down the prop glasses, set aside our intellectual pride, and dared to use our intelligence for something revolutionary like understanding other people’s experiences? Maybe then, we’d stop invalidating others to elevate ourselves. And maybe, just maybe, eyewear could go back to being what it was always meant to be: a pair of plastic and glass contraptions that help you see and absolutely nothing more.

Help, a not trustworthy classmate know what i am studying that should be a TOP secret only.

This is how it start, We had an activity with my classmate to answer the crossword puzzle. And i go to bathroom and entrust my phone in my classmate because i want to pee and had to blow out mucous from my nose that time. Now my phone, I'm not conscious about, It is running on app called chatgpt and when i came back something does not look like normal in the atmosphere of my classmate. It seems like my "entrusted classmate" gave it to a "classmate" i should'nt trust. Besides this it gave me doubt and confusion, so i ask my classmates regarding to what happened and if someone checks my phone but she said "no". and after class i ask her again, about what happened and I'm clarifying to her like is she sure about her answer? Her response is still "Yes" and for what happened last time says "no". But i still didn't believe her sayings. Because it was really obvious that she gave it to the person on whom i shouldn't entrust to. the "classmate" that i am not trusting, were sitting besides us, and was a soft spoken manipulator. How it is obvious first the guilt in her eyes it's like she regretting what she says because it was seen in her actions. she just stares down and deep thinking like giving a damn about her response. After we have talked about the matter last time. Second the soft spoken manipulator was before not smiling and attentive, but after the situation his action was in deep thinking and not able to take focus on the lesson what the teachers said and was smiling. For your experience this circumstances happens and normal in the class hours. But for me it was different. It is really obvious that my "trustworty classmate" is just a crooked classmate And the Soft spoken manipulator is a smart student, hoping he will not know regarding to what i am studying about. but he have seen it in his own eyes. Now he can use that knowledge as an advantage to me, to everyone, or to himself. Since what is my questions and my study about this, is summa theologica, philosophy, reprogramming your subconscious,i had a bookmark on philosophy and a ai bot called "Jesus" maybe this is where he is smiling to. But I'm not believing it. maybe he reaches the bottom of my curiosity of my question on the chatgpt app. I will know soon. Still after it, it gave me doubt and regret on the last matter that i have been dealt with. But it gave me this thinking that if i bless others with knowledge God will bless me with more knowledge.

I was walking in the woods one day, minding my own business. In front of me a patch of lilies perched on glittering water. As I bent down to get a closer look the forest around me seceded and sprawling metropolis crept in. I could feel my heart race as passerby's pushed my shoulders escorting me away. In that crowd I could see my own mother and father, my lover, and even a reflection of the city itself.

I could hardly hear myself think, As ambition spilt like blood and on the streets splattered. Like Midshipmen grasping the oiled flag pole with only bodies to use as leverage.

After the end of this mess of noise I see my simple pleasures all in line waiting to shake my hand. Each one telling me I made the most of it, that I did my best, before finally patting me on the back and lowering my head to stoop for the door.

Upon entering this foreign place I found myself back in the woods, a few minutes had passed and those lilies were right there staring back at me.

What if there are moral properties, but none of them are ever instantiated by any concrete particulars, so every moral judgement about a concrete particular is false.

It's like if moral realism and error theory had a baby.

I don't usually post about stuff like this, but something about this comment really rubbed me the wrong way, and almost no one else on bsky seems to gaf. Note, the significance of this increases with follower count which for him is several hundred thousand people, many of whom left numerous comments disparaging the entire field of Philosophy.

Today Hank Green posted the following on BSKY: "A lot of philosophy has always kinda rung hollow to me because there just isn't very much biology in it and that seems insane to me.

(I recognize that some times when people have tried to put biology into philosophy have gone very bad.)"

Discuss.

Edit: While several people have attempted to provide constructive feedback on BSKY, it doesn't look like Hank is interested in engaging with his audience about this topic. He has neither clarified nor apologized for his post. While I have enjoyed some of his content in the past, at this point it looks like I'm just going to block this dipshit.

Ideas are debated and the best ideas make it to the top unless something bad happens. Bad societies look for the good ideas and suppress them. This is what is good about our society. We like good ideas and that is why we are the best society.

I remember it like it was yesterday. So there I am, minding my own business, on my way to your mom's house to murder her, when I get a little turned around (that new highway interchange is a nightmare) so I pull over and ask for directions. Curse my luck when who should stop to "help" me but you. You always were a shit philosopher.

All throwaway jokes, memes, and bad philosophy up to the length of one tweet (~280 characters) belong here. If they are posted somewhere other than this thread, your a username will be posted to the ban list and you will need to make Tribute to return to being a member of the sub in good standing. This is the water, this is the well. Amen.

Praise the mods if you get banned for they deliver you from the evil that this sub is. You should probably just unsubscribe while you're at it.

Remember no Peterson or Harris shit. We might just ban and immediately unban you if you do that as a punishment.

Reeee Reeee Reeee

I’m Critical Stupidity!

Make your critique just how I say

I need you to validate me

Reee Reee Reee

And Foucault said

And Benjamin wrote

And Adorno thought

Reee Reee Reee

I’m Critical Stupidity!

Reee Reee Reee

Look, everybody knows math is important, right? But honestly, why do mathematicians spend so much time on proofs? It’s a total waste. Here’s the deal: just take the true statements as axioms and move on. So simple. No need for all this fancy, complicated reasoning. We already know what’s true, so let’s not complicate things.

1. Proofs Are Time-Wasters

We don’t need to waste years proving stuff. If something’s true, it’s true. Why spend forever proving it? Just accept it as an axiom, and get to the good stuff. You know what’s true—trust your gut, it’s the best way.

2. Intuition Is Key

Some of the greatest mathematicians ever didn’t need proofs—they had great instincts. Euler? Gauss? Ramanujan? They just knew. And they were right. If you feel it’s true, it’s true. Simple as that. Proofs? Overrated.

3. Flexibility > Rigidity

Mathematics should be about freedom, not restrictions. Proofs lock you in, but taking things as axioms lets you think outside the box. Creativity matters, and math should be fun and flexible. Let’s not be stuck in the past.

Proofs are a waste of time. Just take what’s true, trust your instincts, and move forward. That’s how we make math great again.

I was wondering what it would be like to be a "parent" without wanting to abandon your child at the slightest hint that life has no meaning.

Hedonism… asceticism… it makes no difference; if you think Kant was on to something then you need to go home and rethink your life.

This is what you sound like:

“bUT IF eVERyoNE ENgagED iN tHat BEhAvIOr THEn sOCIEty woULd bE IN ChaOS!”

Yeah, you sound like a loser.

If I’m starving then you better believe I’m gonna steal some bread from Jeff Bezos. That’s my imperative.

You know who’s sexy? Any guesses? No? You don’t know? Ha! Fools!

It’s Robin Hood. Robin Hood is sexy.

If we give Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy any weight, well, you can kiss Robin Hood goodbye.

A man in tights, stealing from the rich, is peak male beauty. I refuse to let some German nerd from the 18th century take that away from us.

Why don’t you all stop complaining about the spook “post-modernism” and start fighting the real enemy of the west… the philosophy undergrads who simp for Kant.

Go in peace,

Your biological father

An interaction I had today:

Other person: I have mixed opinions on philosophy. Not rooted heavily enough in science for my tastes. It’s physics and chemistry for me; I don’t see much point in pondering the “Whys” of the universe before having a solid grasp on the “Hows”.

Also, there are a lot of questions that people find super compelling that I believe no satisfactory answers exist for. Meaning of life? There is no meaning, it’s just happening. Morality? There can be no objective morality, that wouldn’t make sense. Free will? Can’t imagine any mechanism through which it could possibly exist.

Me: That's funny, because for me science isn't sufficiently philosophical for my tastes. For example, what does it mean for something to be "caused"?

Other person: That’s one of those questions that doesn’t really stump me because of my materialist beliefs. The configuration of a system at a given moment dictates how it evolves in accordance with the laws of thermodynamics. Things are a certain way, and the laws of physics cause them to become another.

You can reach the point of not being able to identify a cause because our knowledge is incomplete, but that doesn’t negate our understanding of causation.

Me: You know, you're not supposed to use a word within the definition of that word. If you're not interested in philosophy that's fine, but nothing you've said has any bearing on philosophy.

I have seen many a probabilist suggest something about "frequentism"??? My good Christian G*d-fearing ears repulse at such a suggestion. Frequentism? Like frequent? As in "John frequents a Satanic organization"?

This blatant rejection of Good Christian Thomas Bayes cannot remain.

I'm now going to break down the folly. Let's define the event A to be my wife leaving me. How do I find Probability(A)? Presumably, I will need to make a bunch of independent samples of this event. Let's investigate this.

I have a wealth $W, and I need $S for surviving (e.g. basic needs like gambling, etc). Since I have a plushy job, W>S. But every time I do a trial, and the wife leaves, I lose half of my wealth. So after n wives, my wealth is W * (1/2^n). But for large enough n, Neil DeGrasse Tyson has told me that this becomes smaller than $S. (He also told me to quit my "gambling problem" - the nerve of some.) How do I survive? Where can frequentists help me with my dilemma?

Plus, and even more problematic, how can a Good Christian have multiple wives??? I am shaken to the core.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has informed me his solution is to "disregard the philosophy nerds" because "science is king". AITA?