sad_ant_with_bindle

need an official emote

Ofcourse we can disagree, feel free to diverge from anything i personally hold to be true

My main point was not about s***but i will try:

The main issue i see with modernity and most people enmeshed with it is that the thirst for truth is missing in most people. The same thirst that used to be a fact of life, maybe even necessary to survive and thrive in foregone times. Thanks to modern advances and developments we’ve never really been at threat (except the third world which has always had the short end of the stick, but i digress). We’re perhaps fine with being comfortable in our modern societies like @Maximus pointed out.

I argue that this comfortable numbness eventually runs dry. Yes even the fun of an o***** or free licentious s***can hardly cover for the lack of a congruent lifestyle full of meaning and truth. Don’t get me wrong s***is great and more than a necessary act. Its pleasures have a time and place in every adult life most certainly. But to argue it should always exist side by side in a search of truth is disingenuous. Like if you start coming to an unfavorable conclusion about s***in certain contexts you still have to favor the truth above your tingly feelings.

The sincere search for objective truth should naturally reign supreme above the carnal precisely because from it every other act and part of life will imbue its meaning. If you start by saying there is no inherent meaning then you are precisely arguing the point i deemed as the culprit of modern misery.

The euphoria of betraying nihilistic explanations of life in favor of ones that offer meaning, beauty and truth can’t be replicated.

Once you hold that meaning under scrutiny and you keep growing in conviction even after repeated questioning you start to invigorate every action of life. Even s***becomes imbued with a new purpose. It’s an addition, of layers, not just one, one on top of the other. The onion full of layers of meaning which we used to peel and throw out in the name of modernity, now starts to look enticing again. We look at the world with new eyes and see proverbial onion layered hidden easter eggs tucked away in every direction of this universe.

S***evokes feelings, but don’t they numb out when the act is over? The (objective) truth is timeless and constant by its very nature. Only one thing can ever be true. Paradoxical thinking is an entirely mental endresult.

Instead of hunting for a higher purpose. We have sadly come to the conclusion that food, drink, s***are all we need and because we can peacefully exist (seemingly) we see it as the final stage of philosophy and the epitome of a hedonistic life. Sure do all those things but think about the transformative potential that the search for truth has given us until now.

Good read @op

Op with the best post ever

@op are you Friedrich Nietzsche by any chance?

If op came up w this on his own it’s actually incredible how similar it is

Thank you for sharing this @op

OP thought he had one with his college philosophy essay

Jacobi's critique of Kant grew out of his controversy with Mendelssohn, and it is indeed only part and parcel of his general critique of the Aufklärung. His chief objection to Kant's philosophy is the same as his objection to all philosophy: it leads to the abyss of nihilism. Kant's philosophy, if it were made consistent, proves to be "a philosophy of nothingness." Furthermore Kant begins to acquire a special symbolic significance for Jacobi. He is not just another philosopher, like Leibniz or Spinoza, whose philosophy happens to end in nihilism. Rather, starting in 1799 with his Brief an Fichte, Jacobi sees Kant's philosophy, especially as it is consistently and systematically developed by Fichte, as the paradigm of all philosophy-and hence as the very epitome of nihilism. Jacobi's attack on philosophy has now become first and foremost an attack on Kant, and in particular on Fichte, whom Jacobi sees as nothing more than a radical Kantian. The supreme importance of Kant, his pivotal position in the history of philosophy, rests upon a single fact, in Jacobi's view. Namely, Kant is the first thinker to discover the principle of all knowledge, or what Jacobi calls "the principle of subject-object identity." Although it is not explicit, what Jacobi is referring to is nothing less than the principle behind Kant's 'new method of thought', the foundation stone of his Copernican revolution as explained in the prefaces of the first Kritik. This principle states that reason knows a priori only what it creates according to its own laws. Since it implies that the self knows only the products of its own activity, it makes self-knowledge into the paradigm of all knowledge. Jacobi's term 'subject-object identity' refers to that self-knowledge where the subject makes the object into the mirror of its own activity.

Haven’t read Nietzche aside from a wiki years ago

Nah, it’s mid. And that’s okay. Feel free to critique 👍🏼

Could it be argued some knowledge does not derive from the self or reason’s own activity?

Like the concept of mining. Imagine mining for gems (truth) tucked away in a cavern of darkness (the universe).

Would that gem be possibly placed there by a higher/other intelligence?

someone on here knows Jacobi?

The most important and intrinsic difference between the sublime and the beautiful, however, is this: that if, as is appropriate, we here consider first only the sublime in objects of nature (that in art is, after all, always restricted to the conditions of agreement with nature), natural beauty (the self-sufficient kind) carries with it a purposiveness in its form, through which the object seems as it were to be predetermined for our power of judgment, and thus constitutes an object of satisfaction in itself, whereas that which, without any rationalizing, merely in apprehension, excites in us the feeling of the sublime, may to be sure appear in its form to be contrapurposive for our power of judgment, unsuitable for our faculty of presentation, and as it were doing violence to our imagination, but is nevertheless judged all the more sublime for that.
But from this one immediately sees that we express ourselves on the whole incorrectly if we call some object of nature sublime, although we can quite correctly call very many of them beautiful; for how can we designate with an expression of approval that which is apprehended in itself as contrapurposive? We can say no more than that the object serves for the presentation of a sublimity that can be found in the mind; for what is properly sublime cannot be contained in any sensible form, but concerns only ideas of reason, which, though no presentation adequate to them is possible, are provoked and called to mind precisely by this inadequacy, which does allow of sensible presentation. Thus the wide ocean, enraged by storms, cannot be called sublime. Its visage is horrible; and one must already have filled the mind with all sorts of ideas if by means of such an intuition it is to be put in the mood for a feeling which is itself sublime, in that the mind is incited to abandon sensibility and to occupy itself with ideas that contain a higher purposiveness

Beauty makes us wonder (in amazement)
The sublime makes us ponder (upon a higher purpose)

Is that it?

Now if a magnitude almost reaches the outermost limit of our faculty of comprehension in one intuition, and yet the imagination is by means of numerical concepts (our capacity for which we are aware is unlimited) summoned to aesthetic comprehension in a greater unity, then we feel ourselves in our mind as aesthetically confined within borders; but with respect to the necessary enlargement of the imagination to the point of adequacy to that which is unlimited in our faculty of reason, namely the idea of the absolute whole, the displeasure and thus the contra purposiveness of the faculty of imagination is yet represented as purposive for the ideas of reason and their awakening. It is precisely in this way, however, that the aesthetic judgment itself becomes purposive for reason, as the source of ideas, i.e., for an intellectual comprehension for which all aesthetic comprehension is small; and the object is taken up as sublime with a pleasure that is possible only by means of a displeasure

good post op

can't relate tho im a hero

@celinee are yall the same person by chance?

I’m having a tough time chewing on these lol, but what i’m getting out of this is:

The overwhelming sensory overload from beauty in vast quantities can so much transgress our intellectual capabilities that it shuts down any meaningful takeaway.

That displeasure then causes our rational thinking brain to holistically encapsulate that beauty within a small (conceptual) unity, thus triggering an entire sublimation process.

Beauty > triggers the sublime, and starts the quest for a purposiveness, simply by means of overstimulation or displeasure for our intuitive comprehension

im definitely me

i think they are probably them

we live in a dystopia but no one realizes it cause the sky isnt always smog like the movies and s***

but when you look at how poeple are f***ed by the system in dystopian stories, that s***s happening right now

you’re alienated. some bearded dude wrote about this like 170 years ago

So what has changed really?

@Be2ye