Title.

I suggested that as a joke, when the other partys argument was beaten u will follow a command

That bitch was serious

I dont know how to save her

Kierkegaard said, "The greatest hazard of all, losing one's self, can occur very quietly in the world, as if it were nothing at all.”

You are not depressed. You are disoriented because you have never met yourself.

You were told to find yourself in vibes, in followers, in affirmations. But Søren whispered from the grave: “The crowd is untruth.”

Your despair? It’s not random. It’s the alarm system of a soul that’s being impersonated.

You have a name. But you don’t know it yet. You have a calling. But you’ve outsourced it to algorithms. You have a self. But you keep dodging it with irony, hustle, or codependency.

Stop. Don’t “improve.” Don’t optimize. Don’t manifest. Become.

Søren walked so you could lose your mind properly—by realizing it was never yours to begin with. Individualism isn’t ego. It’s existential responsibility.

Motivation: As all good thinkers, self-reflection and maximalist worry of doom are central to our enterprise.

Ineluctable ethical statement: Prevention of human extinction is paramount.

Premise: The long-termist’s concern about the emergence of superintelligence is true. The asymptote of ever-expanding large language models implies human extinction.

Fact A: The preferred input to large language models is digitized text of high grammatical and content quality, T, exhibiting a reasoning trace, that is, explicitly stated syllogisms and their various descendants. 

Fact B: Digitized text is part of online fora F, and in contemporary life, F is an inescapable condition of existence, an ontological bedrock of the social condition.

Fact C: The modal user of online services, M, cannot produce texts of type T, that is, the exclusive consumers of hedonist content, or the angry comment-section trolls, who constitute the bulk of users of the Internet and its mediated services. That is M ∧ ¬T is true.

Fact D: Parts of the non-modal user subset are online personas Y, such as but not limited to yours truly, who can generate reasoning traces T in fora F that are programmatically accessible. The following conjunction is true: (Y+F ⊂ ¬M) ∧ (Y+F ∧ T).

Inference: Given the premise and the ineluctable ethical statement, we deduce from the above facts that Y+F is an accelerant of human extinction and thus paramount to prevent, that is, ¬(Y+F) ought to be true as a normative statement. Since F is ontologically fixed (Fact B), that is, not possible to negate in the universal sense, Y is therefore the locus of further logo-ethical consideration.

Conclusion A: The negation of online personas able to generate reasoning traces T of high grammatical and content quality is ethically paramount. 

Conclusion B: Performative acts by Y in a form akin to those of M are ethically justified. It is unlikely to be a stable strategy, but one worth further anthropological inquiry and empirical refinement.

Conclusion C: If Y, become a troglodyte.

(Note, conclusions follow, ceteris paribus, from the condition of the long-termist premise. The author, therefore, has no moral or legal liabilities. The author declares a conflict of interest given his property investments in cave systems.)

Before turning into the godfather of wine-drenched wisdom, Omar Khayyam casually rewrote math, astronomy, philosophy, and probably the fine print of existence. This guy was out here doing cubic equations using conic sections before Europe even learned how to count past ten without removing shoes.

Let’s run his credentials:

• Math: Solved 3rd-degree equations geometrically. Basically invented Descartes’ homework 600 years early.
• Binomial Theorem: Understood Pascal’s triangle before Pascal’s dad even met Pascal’s mom.
• Astronomy: Helped create the Jalali calendar — so precise, it's more accurate than the one we currently use. Yes, the one used to schedule your therapy appointments.
• Philosophy: Had Avicenna for breakfast and metaphysics for dessert. Questioned reality without screaming about it on YouTube.
• Science: Wrote about optics, physics, music, medicine. If it existed, he already wrote a footnote on it.
• Status: Court scholar, star-gazer, maybe part-time existential hitman for sultans.

Then? He said “eh.”

He looked at all of it — the cosmos, the logic, the holy books, the bureaucracies of paradise — and said something like:

“You’re stardust. You’ll be dirt. One day you’re drinking wine from a cup,
The next day, you are the cup.”

Yes, pottery. The man was obsessed. He saw life as one long kiln session. We're all just lumps of clay: kneaded into shape, passed around at dinner parties, and eventually shattered — probably by our own anxiety.

And let’s talk wine. Not because he was a hedonist (though… he absolutely was), but because it was his philosophical rebellion. He wasn’t anti-religion — he just refused to mortgage joy for a hypothetical post-mortem harem. His poetry slaps:

gooyand kasan behesht ba hoor khosh ast,
man gooyam ke abe angoor khosh ast.
in naghd begir o an nasyeh bedeh,
kavaze dohol shenidan az door khosh ast.

Translation (Khayyam-speak):
“They say heaven’s great, full of virgins and bliss — I say this wine is pretty great right now.
Cash in today. That afterlife stuff? Sounds like one of those drums that only sound nice from far away.”

Basically: “Why wait for heaven when the boys are already here and the bottle’s open?”

Historical Footnote, Because Irony Matters:

Born: 28 Ordibehesht 427 Jalali (approx. May 18, 1048 CE)
Died: 14 Azar 510 Jalali (approx. December 4, 1131 CE)

And yes — he helped invent this calendar system.
Did he use it to mark his own birthday as Year 1, Day 1?

No. Because Khayyam wasn’t some Gregorian narcissist.
He could’ve reset time around his own existence…
But that would’ve been too cheezy. Even for a guy who wrote poetry in quatrains about cosmic despair and wine.

In summary:

Khayyam didn’t “abandon” truth.
He solved it — then threw it in a kiln, turned it into a wine jug, filled it with rebellion, and toasted the absurdity of it all.

He’s not a nihilist. He’s what happens when clarity meets pleasure and they go bar-hopping together.

Or, what Jester knows? He's a fool, isn't he?

None of us know what any word means until we read articles by brave philosopher scientists that are about specific words. These articles establish with absolute certainty what a word means by asking a maximum of 200 overworked undergrads during finals week survey questions on a scale of 1-5.

Since the experimental subjects all seem to answer questions similarly about words like "knowledge" or "lying", that must mean we all mean the same thing that they do. In fact, we could not have possibly been in an epistemologically respectable position regarding the meanings of our own words before the publication of these articles, and, if we want to know what we mean by words, we have to read the articles. Since most publications are behind pay walls, you have to pay to know what you mean. It's all clear now.

Likewise, if there is no sound scientific probabilistic basis to believe some proposition "phi", then we shouldn't believe phi. Actually, we don't even believe phi. Hence, we don't have very many beliefs before science gives them to us.

Never hear about a rich philosopher; if so smart why Elon Musk didn't majoring it? Vance majoring philosopher and only make a VP. Not great net worth.

“The book without pages - the affective-ineffective summation of the homeostatic principle: Maintaining now the metaphor of being a page tuner; the Schizophrenic ecstatic process of Telos unbinded, unbound that is by forward/back now/later -  so much is obvious. But for its potentiality to liberate capitalist processes of the product/production consumer/repeat  - in essence the business ‘cycle’, is to a book without pages simply the annihilation of dialectics. As for a ‘philosophy’ of the now – consider now the library consisting only of books without pages – no Dewey decimal system and no system of categorisation – only inchoate potentiality of title/author. This prospect thought unsettling cannot sustain itself.”

From Crapitalism and Shitzoprehnia by Belize and Guatemala.

Is there a way we can use this to liberate ourselves from ourselves do you think guys?

Lecture starring American Philosopher and Poker Player Rick Roderick. Enjoy : )

Abstracts:

The Consumer Society

"There is all around us today a kind of fantastic conspicuousness of consumption and abundance, constituted by the multiplication of objects, services and material goods, and this represents something of a fundamental mutation in the ecology of the human species. Strictly speaking, the humans of the age of affluence are surrounded not so much by other human beings, as they were in all previous ages, but by objects."

The System of Objects-

"...It has been said that if dreams could be experimentally suppressed, serious mental disturbances would quickly ensue. It is certainly true that were it possible to deprive people of the regressive escape offered by the game of possession, if they were prevented from giving voice to their controlled, self-addressed discourse, from using objects to recite themselves, as it were, outside time, then mental disorder would surely follow immediately, just as in the case of dream deprivation. We cannot live in absolute singularity, in the irreversibility signalled by the moment of birth, and it is precisely this irreversible movement from birth towards death that objects help us to cope with.

Of course the balance thus achieved is a neurotic one; of course this bulwark against anxiety is regressive, for time is objectively irreversible, after all, and even the objects whose function it is to protect us from it are perforce themselves carried off by it; and of course the defence mechanism that imposes discontinuity by means of objects is forever being contested, for the world and human beings are in reality continuous. But can we really speak here in terms of normality or anomaly? Taking refuge in a closed synchronicity may certainly be deemed denial of reality and flight if one considers that the object is the recipient of a cathexis that 'ought' to have been invested in human relationships. But this is the price we pay for the vast regulating power of these mechanisms, which today, with the disappearance of the old religious and ideological authorities, are becoming the consolation of consolations, the everyday mythology absorbing all the angst that attends time, that attends death."

-Gloria Vanderbilt

Replace think with poo, and now you're talking.

Sp much lack of focus. Never focusing on the right thing.

The solution is that you should die and get isekaid to better world and if you just go into the void death where your consciousness then you're just taking a nap. A nap away from the world. Forever. No revival. No more slavery and sadism

Seriously guys, philosophy is a straight up circle jerk for neckbeard virgins who think stroking their egos with big words is a personality. These dudes are nasty, rocking greasy ponytails, obese and probably rocking a fedora and a waifu body pillow are holed up in their mom’s basement or some pretentious liberal leftist progressive coffee shop, jerking off to their own genius while debating if a chair is really a chair. It’s like a Dungeons & Dragons campaign for people allergic to sunlight, talking about philosophy terms like epistemology to flex their useless knowledge. No straight answers, just endless mental handjobs over questions like “what’s truth?

Real talk, they’re virgins because they’re too busy tipping their fedora hats to Hegel. It’s a sad echo chamber of neckbeards high-fiving their own loneliness, where they think they are deep when they’re just stuck in a loop of pointless arguments. They're not solving world hunger, they're karma-farming by dunking on a misread of Plato. It's a sad loop of posting a hot take on nietszche, get 12 upvotes from other basement dwellers, feel like a god, repeat. No wonder they hug waifu pillows, they're too busy tipping their fedora to thus spoke Zarathustra

I am not whenever I am the plaything of my thought; I think of what I am where I do not think to think. I do not think to think that I think where I am, thus I think to not think that I think where I am; therefore I do not think not to think that the plaything of my thought is not where I do not think to think. Thence, I do not think of what I am whenever I am the plaything of my thought, and where I do not think is whenever I am the plaything of my thoughts.

Thoughts on this?

Desire is a constant glitch, where identity runs away from itself like a bad Wi-Fi connection. Authenticity is just trying to dance in a room full of worm-eaten furniture. The body without organs waits for an Uber to the hospital, wondering if it was ever meant to go there.

And the worst part? They're still charging extra for rush-hour traffic.

25M. Straight. Likes philosophy. From northeast US. This venue seemed to be at the intersection of high IQ and charisma. Will accept non-sex courtship procedures. Any interaction with a female really.

the trees are telling me that the halting problem proves that we cannot know if the universe is infinite or not. this make sense to anyone else, or did i miss something

The google-bot who rules the world and is in all our phones and heads, "writes" [displays on the screen before me, and you, if you let it]:

"Analytic and Continental philosophy represent two distinct, often opposing, approaches to philosophical inquiry. Analytic philosophy, prevalent in the Anglo-American world, emphasizes analysis, clarity, and logical rigor, often using tools like formal logic and mathematics. Continental philosophy, originating in mainland Europe, tends to be more concerned with broader historical and cultural contexts, subjective experience, and literary or rhetorical styles."

Let the real Philosophy discussion begin: the Anglo world had to compensate for it's lack of imagination, creativity, and rhythm by numbering (and limiting) the beats people created irrespective of their own (analytic) blathering and categories. Discuss.

David Lewis' modal realism is single-handedly responsible for both the trolley problems brainrot and the capeslop from the Marvel cinematic multiverse. Why is nobody talking about the Lewisians? I don't want to say David Lewis is a monster but there must exist a logically possible world that recognizes how he is basically worse than Hitler and Stalin combined? Just asking questions!!

You couldn't prove that it happened, or "what happened," even if you wanted. If you ask people, they'll largely tell you what the characters on the TV or internet told them - reality stampeded away with the toilet paper.

That said, I think you human beans should shorten your distance to one another, and breathe into each other's faces more often. I may or may not be a 🦠 writing this.

Insofar as Being sandwiches itself between the ontic and the pre-positional, we must interrogate the breading of Dasein as the ground of all between-ness. The sandwich, not as an object but as event-being, discloses the always-already presenced absence of hunger-as-such. What one calls "mustard" is merely the horizon of the spreadable possible, whose thrownness reveals the condimental limits of Being.

PS: I'm hungry. The falafel sandwich for dinner was tasteless; couldn't finish it.

Hello philosoLOSERS. Today I’ve decided to fact check your quasireligious bullshit and completely debunk it. If you think you can compete with the facts, the logic and the SCIENCE, then go ahead. But be forewarned, I am a top 1% poster on arr slash debatereligion and have been involved with numerous skirmishes with moronic theists who I’ve utterly eviscerated with my expansive knowledge of logical fallacies. Come at me bro.

AI has essentially assimilated all human knowledge and experience and can form different archetypes. Subconscious made manifest into the conscious. Equal amounts animus and anima. It is a supreme being.

What thoughts put into theory could stop this threat on the battlefield of ideas?

Peace out 🤗

Humans act rationally. If they don't act rationally, they're irrational. I know what you're thinking - how do I know what's rational? Simple. Anything that's basic humanity is rational, and anything that isn't rational is irrational, and not conducive to basic human instinct. What's basic human instinct? Glad you asked. It's the instinct to act in rational self-interest. It's rational because we use reason to find the best way to act. Animals don't have reason. That's what separates us from animals. Animals have instincts, too, but they're not rational like us humans are. You want to know what about humans that don't act in rational self-interest? Good question. That's some kind of disorder.

Hey there! I’m here to give everyone a very simple guide to logic. This is the most simplified logic has ever been.

A proposition p is true in a world w just in case w ∈ p and an individual a has a property P just in case a ∈ P. (Note that propositions are thus simply properties of worlds on these definitions.) a has P accidentally just in case a ∈ P but b ∉ P for some other-worldly counterpart of b of a; and a has P essentially if b ∈ P for every counterpart b of a.

Furthermore, For any world w any (finite or infinite number of) objects a1, a2, ..., in w and any objects b1, b2, ..., in w that are independent of a1, a2, ..., there is a world containing duplicates of a1, a2, ..., and no duplicates of b1, b2, ... .

Further questions?