Thread to share your philosophical thoughts on anything 
7 Likes
90 years ago people were using biology to justify racial oppression on the US, or death penalty to underage kids. They still do it now, in some right wing extremist circles.
Right now, most people justify oppression to minorities based on gender and sexual orientation based on a âbiologicalâ or ânaturalâ discourse.
âIf it is biological it must be truth!â
In Western societies our belief and faith in our judeochristian God (the source of truth for all things) got substituted by our faith and belief in science (the new shiny source of truth for all things).
Somehow people think that ânatureâ or âbiologyâ is âhow things should beâ, the same way that religious people used to think before the scientific revolution (âthings should be likethe Bible saysâ) And anything beyond that must be consider profane, abnormal and it should be outcasted.
Now we have reasons to justify why other people are âliving wrongâ or âliving rightâ because it is or it is not compatible with the hypothetical and teleological âend goal of our speciesâ, as evolutionarist biologists think.
That is why XX century epistemologists and philosophers were so focused on demystifying the ânatureâ and âtruthâ problem.
This eventually led them to understand the un-founded and incomplete nature of all forms of knowledge, even for biology and psychology.
That is why psychology comes up with crap definitions like âgender dysphoriaâ on DSM IV, but later on they try to âfixâ it by rejecting the term on DSM V, because they know it is unfounded.
BECAUSE WE DONâT HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA OF WHAT âNATUREâ IS OR WHERE TO STAND ON IN TERMS OF âTRUTHâ.
Because there is not âa natureâ or âa truthâ.
Our insistance on pushing such an idea just shows how we are still parasited by religion at core.
9 Likes
I agree with you.
Just a little bit and weâll discuss these thoughts on the zoom call.
Cant wait to hear you all.
2 Likes
Well said my friend. Youâre so right that scientists/naturalists end up falling into the same mental dogamtic traps that the religious fall into. When people ended up believing in something, their brain patterns reality around that belief in a way that categorizes anything that contradicts it as a ânegativeâ thing. As something that canât be true and is absurd.
All that does is build walls around your mind that donât allow you to percieve the bigger picture. Now youâre stuck in the realm of your own beliefs and canât consider other possibilities⌠because even if you try to, you percieve them from the frame of your current beliefs. Youâre already naturally prone to reject it.
And so I tend to believe that people who tout that nature is one way or another is rejecting that nature is everything. It is all possibilities. Your perception is right and so is the person you disagree with, right as well. And you are both wrong at the same time.
The fact you both experience reality in a way that reflects your perception as being truth means that these âtruthsâ have the capacity to be true for anyone. But the fact you both have completely different viewpoints that reflect as truth in your realities, means that they are simply subjective truths. Everything is true and not true; Reality is subjective.
And now in this day in age, people are realizing this more as they have been gaining more and more freedom to define themselves and reality however theyâd like. This was partly due to the internet making information from all the world available to them and opening their mind to all kinds of possiiblities they werenât exposed to before.
Back then, you only knew what your tribe or little village of people knew. The information you were exposed to was controlled and ensured that you were thinking the same things as the rest of the population. There was more âobjective truthâ in a homogenous population that had everyone thinking the same. Anyone who didnât would get outcast in order to not disrupt the order of society.
But now, weâre experiencing chaos. The internet has exposed all the world to itself and all its conflicting subjective realities. Too many of us canât bear contradictory beliefs that offend our values. And I get it, I understand why having other ideals forced upon us that donât allign with ours make us uncomftorable. On all ends of the spectrum, itâs confusing and disruptive to our truths. Itâs just hitting extremes now in that these culture wars are inciting people to just hate others simply because they believe in different things. Sounds similiar? Well, we used to hate people for believing in different gods or the same god in a different way.
The patterns are all the same and we keep repeating them time and time again.
5 Likes
This goes for unspoken Truth. Not Truth itself.
Truth is a dialectical process, the more you hold on to stuff, the more you are living in a lie and the more truth becomes hidden to unveil, an unconscious cycle. Like cancer.
By speaking your truth, you break the cycle to make conscious the unconscious.
Good cinema is able to portray such ideas in a magnificent way.
In order to feel that his child was spared the burden of existence, one has to believe that existence is a burden.
2 Likes
Whatâs this desconstruction you speak of? Was it some sort of movement? Iâm asking cause I donât know and this is the first I hear of this.
But if I had to guess, the deconstruction of symbolic binary structures. How were we to even do such a thing with language? Language is what logically creates these binary structures. When you define anything, you are also defining what it is not. Language is the structure of these mental traps we keep tripping into.
Hmm, I think the book âQuantum Psychologyâ by RAW dove deeply into this and mentioned that speaking in âE-Primeâ would be the best way to circumvent this. Aristotlean logic is partly what made language create these binary traps for us. The logic always presumes something to be. âX is Bâ and that makes it an objective judgement. The problem with using is in language is that it automatically creates that binary structure in your mind and now you close it into a specific pattern.
âI am an anarchistâ classifies me as always an anarchist in my subconscious mind. Any other thoughts will be rejected because they contradict my identity as an anarchist. Instead, it would perhaps be better to say âI tend to lean towards anarchist ideas.â Now, Iâm just a person that leands toward anarchist thoughts and concepts and am still open to all other thoughts and ideas.
We do this with classifying things as well and it doesnât seem like a problem, but our brain classifies these judgements as reality in a way, that makes a person inseperable from your judgement of them.
For example, âSarah is a dental hygienistâ classifies that as what she âis.â When in actuality "Sarah cleans teeth from nine to five.â
The reason this matters is because now your brain canât separate Sarah from being a dental hygienist. Itâs just what she is⌠when that is only her occupation and not exactly what defines her as a person.
But thatâs what people unkowingly do with political ideologies, race and all sorts of things. âJohn is a liberalâ and that becomes that whole persons personality to the brain. If you classify yourself as conservative, your brain automatically classifies this whole person as someone opposed to your ideology and defaults to not liking them or being unreceptive/unempathetic to them. (Vice versa as well) (I know this isnât how every single person ends up judging people but for many people, this sort of extreme binary division happens).
Statements like âblack people are violentâ is part of this aristotelean logic problem. It could be a statement in reference to rising statistics of black on black crime in the US and this statement is made to judge the data. The problem is that it is a massive generalization and doesnât account for every single black person that isnât violent. Also, black people are not the same in every country so that statement is so general, that it doesnât quite make sense.
But, we make these kinds of statements all of the time and donât even notice it. Generalizing is just a part of our daily language and they program our brains to classify things in this binary structure of âthis is this, it is not that.â âI am this, I am not that.â We are closing our minds into these limited structures of thought. Guess what their called? Ahh you all know the answer. Ego.
The moment we consistently profess something as is, our minds take that to mold our brains into that belief. You got rejected by a girl and think âI am ugly.â Well, okay now you identify yourself as being ugly and the thought keeps repeating itself to itâs imprinted that âI am ugly.â
âI probably wasnât her typeâ would have avoided that. Using maybe, perhaps, tend to, are also shortcuts to not fall into these traps and keep your mind moving in a dynamic manner that can flow with and through everything.
I think E-Prime is needed more than ever now, with reality becoming more and more subjective. But as you say, people like to feel like they belong and want something to identify as. It brings them comfort. Hmm, Iâll keep thinking on these things cause theyâre interesting puzzles to try to figure out.
4 Likes
According to Derrida, deconstructionâs purpose is to expose the unconscious structure that governs any rigid form of discourse in order to make it fall through its own weight. No need to add anything to it.
This task could be achieved also through questioning.
By making questions that expose the underlying structure of any form of discourse in an atempt to undo the structure.
Lacanâs solution for this is the âDiscourse of the Analystâ, a form of discourse that he borrowed from Aristotelian logic and serves the purpose to expose the nature of the âMaster Discourseâ , in other words, universal affirmative structures (generalizations, as you said) through particular negative lenses (discourse of the analyst).
For example, an obssesive neurotic patient may come with the next universal affirmative âAll women are evilâ, which has the form of the Master Discourse, one is taken as a slave by an universal affirmation that rules ones daily life and shapes ones experience.
A Lacanian analyst would use the âAnalyst Discourseâ by engaging in such universal affirmative with a particular negative: âNot all women are evilâ and exposing to the patient how is it possible that not all women are evil through the patientâs own experience. Maybe by helping him to find examples in which women were not evil.
And therefore, allowing the patient to come to terms with his own castration, and accepting the uncomfortable unfounded and incomplete nature of his reality, rather than seeking safety on authorities and totalizations to make sense of his reality (TV news/religion/any form of Master Discourse)
IMO Lacanâs approach seems more effective than Derridaâs.
This happened because Derrida was a philosopher and Lacan had a bigger responsability in dealing with mental illness and issues of the mind.
1 Like
The main issue with the term âisâ âareâ or âbeâ is that presuposes a present state of immutability.
In which things do not change and are always static and still. That is how we were able to develop science, gadgets and technology.
This way of seeing the world as present and immutable is a pov shared only by Western societies, old Eastern societies used to see the world in terms of abscence and change.
I think the pure self would be an Ego that is not as dense and parasited by the circular retro-active trace of past/future structures.
A way more âlightâ Ego, which is able to draw compassion and love from the eternal void, but still an Ego.
Without any Ego at all we wouldnât be able to move, orient ourselves, talk or do anything.
Yes, by undoing our dense Egos into more light Egos we are more able to flow and feel compassion, love for others.
2 Likes
Yes, it is indeed a circular issue.
Because society end up creating more âviolent black peopleâ by having the prejudice that black people are violent that ideologically parasites on people that are black and believe themselves to be violent, and then they find more reasons to justify why black people are violent.
Itâs an ouroboros.
That is why dialectics and circular reasoning it is so important to adress those inter-subjective and social problems.
Lacan leads this conflicting nature of the humanâs psyche and pushes it to its own end.
By concluding that the unconscious is what makes consciousness possible in the first place, we became conscious as an effect of the unconscious and viceversa.
1 Like
Hmm, I certainly agree that questions can help deconstruct beliefs deriving from these binary structures. Also, the right questions can uncover how you really donât know what you claim to know (socratic questioning comes to midn)
Although, Iâll admit I donât know how well just saying the opposite to what someone says will help deconstruct? If I say âall women are evilâ and a therapist says ânot all women are evil,â how exactly does that deconstruct that belief for me? That disagreement alone will probably make some people feel like okay, Iâm not on the same page as this person and become more unreceptive to them?
But I guess you can follow up with some questions such as:
- What experiences have led you to believe that all women are evil?
- Are there any women in your life that you do not view as evil? What makes them different?
- How might your belief impact your relationships with women?
And from then on, get deeper to the source of that massive generalization and deconstruct it in a way where it clearly doesnât make logical sense anymore.
3 Likes
My bad.
I didnât explain how Lacanian psychoanalisis works on practice.
Iâll try to create an example.
Lacanian psychoanalisis differs from conventional psychological practice.
According to Lacan, a psychologist confronts its patient from his own Ego, which causes confict and it is not therapeutical at all, but normative.
A psychologist atempts to push from his own imaginary and Ego what he believes that the patient should want, do or behave like.
This of course causes resistance, as you mentioned.
In Lacanian psychoanalisis, the analyst drops his own Ego before he starts psychoanalisis with his analysand (patient).
Dropping his own Ego means that the analyst assumes a subjective place in which he does not know anything.
By not knowing, the analyst drops all forms of assumptions about his analysand and this allows him to work directly on the analysand discourse and not on his own imaginary projections based on his beliefs and Ego.
This is necessary to stablish transference from the analysand to the analyst, which is the moment in time that allows the unconscious to manifest itself through the idealization of the patient towards his analyst, he sees his analyst as an authority and assumes that he knows how to cure him, although the analyst doesnât know shit, heâs just aware of the position in which his patient places him on, and works from there to unveil his unconscious.
This empty spot that the analyst places himself into, it is called the Discourse of the Analyst, and it is just a subjective position that does not know and does not assume anything or takes anything from granted, from which it allows the patient to reflect into his own discourse, which most of the time it is the Discourse of the Master, because that is the subjective position in which the patient assumes that he knows and takes things for granted, which causes him to suffer because of his narrowed point of view of reality that stops him from other possibilities that allow movement and change necessary for a more healthy and balance state of mind.
The patient is cured when he is able to move from the Discourse of the Master to the Discourse of the Analyst, which makes him drop transference/idealization from his analyst and sets him a little bit more free.
2 Likes
Humans can agree a tree is a tree.
But the moment we try to define what a treeâs nature is, we enter subjective territory. There are so many possible answers and depending on the context, any of those answers can seem the most true. But given the infinite expansion of the universe and the many different possible trees that can exist everywhere, and the inability to know what itâs like to be a tree because we are judging from a humans perception⌠we canât make a 100% objective assertion of what a treeâs true nature is.
So it seems that truth is the inherent perception of something without any sort of judgement. Any sort of idea of what it is. Itâs the âit just is.â
(Iâm just ranting philosophical thoughts lol, this ainât a dispute. Iâve just been thinking a lot about this stuff lately.)
5 Likes
Too easy even. Most men do the bare minimum. Many donât groom, dress nice, have any hobbies or artistic endeavors, have any interest in self growth/spirituality in the way all of you guys are (this is a very attractive trait) and that actually approach women in person (after listening to resilience field). These are simple things you can add to your life to set yourself apart from everyone else out there.
Are there sites that help guys find the best way to cut their hair, fix up their facial hair and also best ways to dress? Like something customizable in that you answer some questions on how you want to look, kind of style you prefer, ext⌠and then it gives you all the pointers and links to kinds of clothes and the right sort of combinations to have?
Iâm curious to know if that exists because that would be super helpful to some people. Proper grooming/clothes makes you very approachable and attractive. It shows you care and put in effort in yourself. But I know that itâs hard to just figure that out because we all look so different and the right answers will be different for all of us.
5 Likes
Yep, as you said, it is a double-edged sword.
As Heidegger puts it, most people in the mass are not ready for complex ideas and it can be harmful, here is an example:
Deconstruction was supposed to discreate rigid symbolic binary structures created by society (good and bad, man opposed to women, poor to rich, beauty to ugly, etc), to free ourselves from them.
All those symbolic oppositions we live in are prisons that limit our belief systems and capacity for expression to confine ourselves and others into identities (blacks and whites. Jews and Arians, etc).
As Lacan puts it, if a poor man on the streets believes himself to be a King is insane as a King who believes himself to be a King. Or as a man who believes himself to be a man, or a woman who believes himself to be a woman.
We all lack being and seek for identification/be something to feel safe/secure, which means that at core of our Egos we all are delusional and our existence is fictional.
But the mass took a complex idea like Deconstruction and used it to create more symbolic binarisms on top of old symbolic binarisms.
So, more prisons and more identification.
This led to Hollywood stars to declare themselves to be âNon-Binary genderâ or âthe opposite genderâ.
Which is a paradoxical intention to âpseudo-deconstructâ gender by opposing âNon-Binary genderâ to âBinary genderâ and therefore, creating MORE symbolic oppositions, more identities and prisons.
Which confuses people even more, and creates anger and more conflict.
I see where you are going, Iâd say there is no truth without a perception to be held by it.
IMHO being present in the moment is getting rid of all truth from your subjective experience and being able to experience without any form of truth to shape, limit, determinate and create reality for you.
Truth is like the cancer of the Ego.
1 Like
Yes, most men are more dead than alive.
They lack passion,drive, energyâŚ
Living day in, day out, with no long-term goal, no vision, and got comfortable with that.
And drive is essential for change and attraction. being âreactiveâ, charged, awakeâŚ
I´ve never went out to chase women.
But when I was in my old training, I was absolutely on fire man, so passionate about the topics there!
Even while pmo-ing, I was so freacking confident bc I was in an environment where I was appreciated and rewarded for doing something I am naturally good at and love doing.
That made me one of the best of my training and that was the time where I attracted the most women ever in my life.
Before that I´ve never had one openly flirting in the classroom with me while others getting jealous lol!
Also, because a lot of guys are concerned with their height, it doesn´t fucking matter.
She was like 2 heads taller than me and still approached me constantly.
That was before I´ve found Subs and fields! I was just a fat, socially akward nerd who happened to find his passion.
Find yourself and something you are wild about, follow it. The natural confidence that comes as a byproduct will radiate from within and attract more than enough women.
Very true. If a woman is serious about you, she will appreciate this.
Even if you are a mess, don´t have a buck in the bank etc. you have the growth mindset.
Although I don´t know the name anmymore, there is.
I´ve used to have a friend that bought his clothes from a german(?) site that worked like that. They made âstyle-packagesâ based on your answers, body type etc. and he was usually very satisfied with the results.
4 Likes
Sounds like a good idea
1 Like
Hmm, so in this sense, the undoing of the subjective self (ego), brings about the pure self. The pure self is rooted in what âisâ and so truth becomes the natural flow of being and understanding.
Agreed. We build mountains of masks out of the truths we hide below the surface. To speak your truths, live in them and accept them and live in them is full integration.
3 Likes
This is also a major theme in TLOU.
Hereâs also an amazing example of well executed Deconstruction through cinema by exposing the contingencies and basis of racism in the US:
1 Like
At this point we could rename this one to
1 Like
Yes. Thanks for putting in to better words than I could. And that always bothered me even before reading the book because I always felt the univese isnât static and is always subject to change.
Oh yeah, thatâs the goal. Ascension doesnât rid you of your ego. It just rips off the layers of the limited 3d space/time ego that thinks in that circular past/future structure, and uncovers the ego that is rooted in the present, connected to what is and has free will.
A thought Iâve been having lately is that under the typical human ego structure, we donât have free will. We always act in accordance to the rigid structure of our minds. The way we react to things is already predetermined. Your mind is only working within a certain set of possibilities that you have subscribed to based on your beliefs.
When you deconstruct these rigid structures, you become open to everything. Open to all possibilities without being closed to a certain set of them. And in that mental space is where you can freely choose for yourself.
For real. Itâs a collective-self fulfilling prophecy. Perpetrated by society and obviously black people in these sorts of communities. The stories they hear growing up. The kind of toughness you have to raise your kids with to defend yourselves against other violent kids. I grew up with black people and saw it all happening from very early on. Itâs a vicious cycle and truly the only people that can get them out of it is themselves. Society isnât going to help.
Ooh such a good show with so many consistent themes throughout. I donât know if you know the ending yet but Iâll wait til then to talk more deeply about it. The ending raises this question and other moral questions so well and I canât wait for the internet discussions that will revolve around it.
3 Likes