Philosophical masterpiece

yeah cause most people don’t read at all, and communist as a subgroup has a tradition of you know about actually reading, the thread was prob gonna be over represented by them no matter what

I'm also failing to see why discussing economic philosophy in the philosophy thread is a bad thing lol

OP having his own dialogue and there are multiple convos happening at once itt, like a healthy philosophy thread is supposed to have. If y'all want to talk about something else, then do it. If you want to block the communists itt, then do it. If you want to just block me in general for typing a lot, then do it lol. Ppl act like they're forced to see what I and others post itt. Go start a convo about something else I'm not hijacking unrelated conversations nor is anyone else itt who is a socialist of some sort

It's okay to discuss communism, please just don't let it take over the thread. It will derail and die.

All I did was post a meme

@Yuzzy got the ball rolling

I'm down to talk about something else. I like discussing religion and I'm personally agnostic so I'm not some Hitchens edgelord

Notice also when @op was talking to another user ITT about M*rxism I didn't intervene precisely because I didn't want to derail the thread

But of course I'm finna rep communism in the philosophy thread

Anyway: Thoughts on God? What we thinking? is there only one of them? Is he/she/it real? etc, let's go

Anyone find classical philosophy kind of boring to read? It’s just too full of cliches and generalities for me to really excite me or anything. This is by the way not a critique in any way on those works as these works made the cliches and generalities and laid the foundation for the rest of philosophy, but I don’t get many new insights from the works of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius or old Eastern philosophers. Am I alone in this or?

i am somewhat foggy on how morality works in Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism (mainly because i find morality & ethics extremely boring, so i sort of ignore it for the most part) but karma is definitely considered an eternal principle within both spiritual systems, karma at its rawest form is defined as simply cause and effect, or actions have consequences

i guess a secularized view could align with the way you formulate karma as in your actions having reverberating effects in the phenomenal world per se, i do however adhere wholly to the metaphysics of the Advaitic system, and do believe that supernaturally karma has to be expunged or handled throughout a series of births, relatively “good” moral acts are defined as that which leads to the Real (Brahman) and “bad” moral acts are that leads away from it, but apparently these moral-value distinctions are not things that inhere within the Atman nor Brahman, as they are commonly defined as beyond the phenomenal world and ultimately unaffected by its comings and goings—so i guess the question would sort of be, how does karma get handled in each birth? i have been warring with that particular question myself

i think in totality however, each time through the cycle you are supposed to be taking steps towards the real and/or liberation teleologically

Also I won't use ad hominem unless someone uses it toward me lol

I said what I said to @Marble because he made his dissatisfaction with what I was saying a personal dig rather than a critique or just asking for the thread to not be totally derailed. I'm only throwing shots if y'all throw shots and I'm going to actively try to make them pettier and more tasteless than what was initially said to me lmao

Philosophical discussion of any kind isn't enjoyable at all if people are going to put their emotions into it.

I personally think that if God exists it's a force, not anything we can really consider as a "living" thing or even a "being" per se

I also think it would be completely outside of the realm of human perception and is likely "outside" of the Universe, or is maybe the Universe itself

But "outside" is probably the wrong word and again shows the limits of human perception

not a fan of freud i guess

this is exactly my take on it as well

i consider all religions as valid paths to the divine (perennialism) because they are all based on that indescribable otherworldly transcendent “force” (i usually just say “whatever” because there are no terms that can properly encapsulate it)

You ever read Bookchin?

I believe in that force too. That's why I'm agnostic.

I think it's personally a bit arrogant to believe human perception can explain everything around, or above, us, but I'm just not confident enough in any one religion's explanations to really subscribe to it wholesale.

I also just personally cannot believe consciousness come out of nowhere even if I think it's a purely physical phenomenon lol. Ain't no accident and idc what anyone has to say about it

when i was reading a bit of plato (the symposium) i kind of enjoyed it so idk

i do sort of think comprehensively working through the classical philosophers to be a bit of a headache however, my method was reading a ton of articles and concepts that related to questions that i had, which funneled me to different philosophers and books

my sphere consists entirely of metaphysics and philosophy of religion

idk i was just f***ing around with his concept of death drive lol

I think you might like at least some excerpts out of "The Ecology of Freedom", but the best starting point is probably "The Philosophy of Social Ecology". He talks about the propensity for matter to form itself into increasingly complex, diverse, and eventually sentient, conscious, living things. It informs his views on economics and social organization, and while you may not agree exactly with him on those fronts, that view he has and how he explained it was such a mindfuck to me. I became an agnostic instead of an atheist when I read his work.

Reading Meditations. Gotta say I'm surprised that I've pretty much been living my life similarly to many of the concepts and ideals of stoicism presented throughout the book(s). Just without the headassery.

We are god

no dumbass anyone can think for themselves.

a philosophy degree just means u know a lot abt philosophy, doesn't mean ur smart or anything

King

Real talk

Intelligent criticisms warrant intelligent responses

Likewise for unintelligent criticisms