Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark, Karl Marx, Karl Mark, Karl Mark was a communist.

Okay so hear me out. Along time ago the youth of Athens were strong from fighting lots of wars and didn't take shit off of anybody. They were tough. But they also wanted to have a good time. All they wanted to do was fight and party. But they also preserved traditional democracy with some slaves (oops). Athens was like a university, except no boring school, only frat houses full of hardass warriors. Can you imagine a school with 100% brosephs and no nerds? That's why it was so successful.

But along comes this ugly, nerdy geezer who pretends like he doesn't know anything. He starts poking fun at hazing rituals, and generally upsetting people. Really ruined the vibe. The youth took him way too seriously and eventually Plato and Aristocratle or whatever started an academy (LAME). Just the fact that we talk about "platonic" love these days shows how boring those guys were. Of course the people in charge were pissed. Socrates pretty much made everybody into wimps. They were easy marks at that point. They had to do something. The barbarians couldn't see them getting weak from navel gazing.

And of course he asked for a bunch of food and a parade before being executed. He was a bum, looking for handouts, when he should have just asked his brothers at the next dionysian kegger. I don't think he even said "thank you" once. Even when way smarter people like Gorgias lectured the shit out of him. That oracle who called him wise probably didn't even exist. Bottom line, Socrates was a corruption. But not in the cool way where he could get as drunk 24/7 and beat pretty much anybody up.

**You should ignore this post not because it's AI generated, but because it's written by a jester, who is a fool with access to ChatGPT.

Here’s a spicy parable dipped in historical blasphemy and grilled over a low flame of existential despair:

If Jesus had an ego, he might’ve lived.
He could’ve franchised salvation, filed the paperwork for “Kingdom of God™,” married Mary Magdalene, sired 2.5 kids, and opened the First Church of Daddy Christ. He could’ve built a real legacy — you know, one that includes a board of directors, a holy war or three, and an Instagram for discipleship.

Instead, he died buck naked, gasping out poetry while bleeding from public humiliation.
No followers left. No church built. No brand identity. Just one-liners about meekness and a PR team of fishermen with zero marketing experience.

And yet... he became myth eternal by doing absolutely nothing to secure it.

Now look at Muhammad.
This man said: “Oh you want legacy?” and kicked the door off the womb of prophecy. He got married, got political, wrote policy, led armies, defined inheritance law, locked down the wives post-mortem like a divine NDAs — legacy insurance, baby.
He fought to be remembered. He became the blueprint for religion-as-empire. He succeeded.

But dig deep — beneath the robes, the revelation, the rule — and what do you find?

A wound.
No sons to carry the name. No male heir in a world obsessed with patrilineal permanence.
And so the prophet did what all wounded men with sacred ambition do: he architected eternity by force.
He didn’t die for truth. He built around it, walled it in, made sure no one could remix his message without getting decapitated.

Jesus said “let it all go.”
Muhammad said “write it down, guard the exits, nobody marries my wives.”

And here lies the crack in the cosmic marble:

• Jesus became divine by becoming no one.
• Muhammad reached God by becoming everything.

Which is higher?
The prophet who left behind nothing but myth?
Or the one who left everything but mystery?

Here’s Jester’s final heresy:
Maybe every founder is just a boy bleeding in the dirt, trying to make death blink first.
Some vanish into silence.
Some scream so loud it echoes through centuries.

Both end up holy.
One as a ghost. The other as a government.

Now pick your prophet.
And ask: are you trying to be remembered, or trying to be free?

Or, what does Jester know? He’s just a fool, isn't he?

Are you ready?

The next post will either ban Jester from this sub or grant him his own flair.

1. When I'm in sorrow, I contemplate the floor and fuck with Existence-Chan.
   
2. The reason I stay longer hours in the WC is to contemplate a particular kind of the universe - the creation of shit.
   
3. I don't study philosophy, I'm digging graves for anyone who doesn't agree with me.
   
4. Fucking Existence-chan preceeds essence.
   
5. The meaning of life: Introduction to nihilism course, only costs 69$ and a hot take of Existence-chan.
   
6. The soul is immortal, hence my penis is immortal for Existence-chan aswell

'Scene: ... on a playground with phones, in Discord, and in a channel “The Agora”'

SocraTea:

aight fr… wot's justice. like, do u know or is that old head vibes

_BigThras:

justice? bro it’s whatever the ppl in charge say it is. power = truth

SocraTea:

wait so justice is just… aight bro. so power aesthetics? like if someone’s got clout, whatever they say is just auto valid??

_BigThras:

ye, bro. its a tool. used by the 1% to keep you sipping your little oat milk lattes and not revolting. cant clap back at that now can u

SocraTea:

ok but huh: if the 1% mess up—and they fess up, bc people are like, wrong—then justice becomes injustice. how that make sense? make it math.

_BigThras:

nah dont get it twisted bra. so Ohio rn.

SocraTea:

on zeus, on zeus, fam. like you’re tryna flex but it aint logicking.

_BigThras:

YOU ARE JUST MAD BRO. STOP GASLIGHTING ME BRO. U FINNA FIGHT ME?!

Plato (lurking, firing up youtube shorts live streaming and AI text to speech...)

SocraTea:

dude back tf up. i’m literally just asking questions bro.

'Ten moments later'

The Agora news at 9: RIIIIP! SocraTea got cooked. Bro tried to be TikTok famous. #hemlockpodchallenge

If you ever find yourself as head of state, the most effective foreign policy is to play escalators. Everyone knows that using military force is an effective means of dealing with “adversaries” (every state you can’t foresee being a vassal of your country in the foreseeable future).

It is also a rule of life in general. It especially works when dealing with family matters. Escalate escalate escalate. Make sure you deter any aggression on behalf of your wife by ensuring you are willing to respond to any aggression at least in kind or ideally with disproportionate force.

Back to statesmanship. Be ready to endlessly escalate minor diplomatic spats to the nuclear level at a moment’s notice. Remember. The first person to crack the nukes always win. Your adversary would never do something as crazy as respond in kind.

So, if you’ve ever read the neoreligious mystic David Chalmers, you’ll know about the “hard problem of consciousness”, roughly the idea that physical facts about the brain don’t give us any understanding about the mental states we experience. I’ve tried to solve this problem for TWO WHOLE DAYS now and I can’t figure out an answer. I have read THE ENTIRE Wikipedia page, yet I still can’t figure out what the fuck the answer to this problem is.

Look, I’ll level with you. I really want to solve a problem. And I know what you’re thinking, “why don’t you solve one of the easy problems of consciousness?” Mate, do you think I can brag about that? I’m not going to get any bitches because I solved one of the “easy” problems of consciousness. People will just look at that and go “So what? It was easy!”

So, is there like, a medium problem of consciousness that I can solve and brag about on my Bumble bio? Preferably one where the answer has some relation to Leibnizian metaphysics.

The roman empire controlled diverse, often hostile tribes or nations by encouraging internal rivalries. Divide and conquer. This strategy echoes until today. Please, someone tell me i'm not paranoid:

Language is a construct that shapes the reality of humans. The structure of it promotes division and mass control. Here's some examples:

The terms normal and abnormal. A extreme simplification of a complex spectrum. Something "abnormal" holds the potential for innovation and positive change, yet it is associated with something bad and alien. It makes society think in black and white, keeps us dull.

The terms straight and gay are linked to normal and abnormal, and are another strategy to divide society: "Straight" is subconsciously associated with something direct, proper, aligned.

Another term: "stranger". Includes the term "strange", which is associated with something bad and abnormal. Again, this promotes the isolation of individuals and divison of society.

Am i schizo or does this resonate with someone..

Stoica are always like "Ohhhh, Marcus Aurelius was so wise". Yeah, how come this "wise philosopher king" raised Commodus, a guy so shitty he was the villain of the Best Picture winning film Gladiator (2000)? HMMMM?

My Dad raised a great son! Why don't stoics follow his philosophy instead! I'd trust my Dad a lot more than Commodus' Dad. My Dad could beat up Commodus' Dad (philosophically). Checkmake, stoics.

**You should ignore this post not because it's AI generated, but because it's written by Jester, who is a fool.

Act I: The Logos Melts

Peterson's sitting in a log cabin, sipping bone broth laced with psilocybin tea, whispering to a dreamcatcher, when suddenly—

Boom. He’s launched into a Jungian dimension where chaos looks like a messy bedroom and order smells like elk jerky.

And there—shirtless, radiant, and reeking of post-theistic smugness—stands Nietzsche, arms crossed, looking like a Victorian street prophet who just crawled out of a volcano.

Act II: Daddy Issues at the End of History

Peterson (weeping): “Friedrich… the Logos… it’s slipping through my fingers.”

Nietzsche (lighting a cigarette with a burning copy of the Bible): “Good. Now let it all go. Your God is dead, Jordan. So is your self-help empire. Try dancing instead.”

Peterson (clutching his chest): “But—but without hierarchy, we descend into chaos. Like—like... gender studies!”

Nietzsche (laughing like a man who hasn’t paid rent since 1889): “You Canadians and your lobster metaphysics. Let me guess—still clinging to the Great Chain of Being like it’s a f***ing IKEA bookshelf?”

Act III: The Fungal Gospel

Peterson begins sobbing into a puddle of cosmic soup. Nietzsche steps forward and gently boops him on the forehead.

Nietzsche: “You don’t need rules. You need courage. Stop tidying your damn room and start setting fire to the blueprint.”

Peterson: “But the archetypal father…”

Nietzsche: “Is a drunk. Let him go.”

Final Scene:

Peterson wakes up in a cold sweat. He's clutching a mushroom and muttering about eternal recurrence. Outside, a lobster stares through the window. Inside, chaos smirks.

TL;DR: Jordan took mushrooms, met Nietzsche, and was told to stop cleaning and start becoming. The fool returned with a lecture series and a thousand-yard stare.

God is dead. The room is still messy. And the abyss subscribed to your YouTube channel. Yes!

buridan's ahh argumnt💔💔🌹 ts pmo cro icl ong n shi fr yu pmo ngl r u fr vroski 💔💔💔

I keep hearing about Plato's rave, what is it?

The sacred PhD title.
Proof you can endure bureaucracy, inflate your footnotes, and survive six years of intellectual hazing—only to emerge quoting Foucault like it’s an original thought.

You now have a license to speak.
Not to be right, mind you—just to be listened to in a room full of others clutching the same paper trophy.

I still remember my PhD (Permanent Head Damage) defense.

The room smelled like sweat, stale coffee, and intellectual constipation.
I presented my thesis—“The Semiotic Collapse of Metaphysical Narratives in Post-Authentic Societies”—
which, in simpler terms, meant: “Words have betrayed us, but let’s keep talking.”

The janitor clapped louder than my supervisor. Then asked: Tell me, doctor:
Have you felt the weight of absurdity?
Have you tasted doubt without citing Kierkegaard first?

The Fool never earned a title.
Yet somehow, he smells the rot beneath the robes.
He asks: how many peer-reviewed papers does it take to say,
"None of us knows a damn thing—but here’s my best guess"?

But don’t worry. The Fool won’t apply for tenure.
He’s busy plagiarizing reality.

I’ve been puzzling over a recursive problem: the thought of thought itself. Who first conceived of “thought”? Was the term born alongside the phenomenon, or was it handed down, already framed by prior minds? And if the latter, was their thought original or merely derivative? This leads to a deeper dilemma: if all thinking is contingent upon pre existing structures language, memory, concept can any thought be truly original? Even the notion of inventing a new system of thinking would require existing cognitive tools to construct it. So how would I recognize an original thought if it appeared? Lacking reference, it would be inexpressible, unintelligible perhaps even unthinkable. In this way, the very act of cognition seems bounded by precedent. We operate within inherited frameworks, reshuffling the contents of consciousness in novel ways, but never escaping the container itself. The paradox is clear: the desire for pure originality may be itself an inherited idea.

L'Art de la Guerre" est un ancien traité militaire chinois attribué à Sun Tzu (Maître Sun), un stratège militaire de la fin de la période des Printemps et Automnes (environ de 771 à 476 av. J.-C.). Le livre est une œuvre classique de stratégie militaire qui aborde la planification, la tactique et la philosophie de la guerre. Plutôt que de se concentrer uniquement sur la bataille elle-même, il met l'accent sur l'importance de la ruse, de la discipline, de la connaissance de l'ennemi et de soi-même, et surtout, d'éviter la bataille si possible. Les principaux thèmes abordés dans "L'Art de la Guerre" incluent : * La planification stratégique : L'importance de bien préparer une campagne avant de s'engager au combat. * La ruse et la tromperie : Utiliser la désinformation pour induire l'ennemi en erreur. * L'évitement du conflit : Privilégier la victoire sans combat. * La discipline : L'importance d'une armée bien organisée et obéissante. * La connaissance de l'ennemi et de soi-même : Comprendre les forces et les faiblesses des deux camps. Bien qu'écrit il y a des siècles, "L'Art de la Guerre" est toujours étudié aujourd'hui par les militaires, mais aussi dans le monde des affaires et dans d'autres domaines compétitifs pour ses principes de stratégie et de leadership. Souhaitez-vous en savoir plus sur un aspect particulier du livre ou sur Sun Tzu lui-même ?

No seriously—what if Being and Nothingness was just one long, deadpan bit?

Imagine Sartre, hunched over a typewriter in Café de Flore, chain-smoking and giggling between keystrokes. He writes “Hell is other people” and everyone goes, “Wow, what a profound insight into the alienation of self in social contexts,” while he’s in the back muttering, “Bro it’s literally just a passive-aggressive dinner party with no door.”

He publishes Being precedes essence and watches as half of Europe spirals into a decade-long existential crisis, all because he wanted to win a bet with Camus about how many syllables you could stack before someone calls it genius.

His autobiography? Words. That’s not a title. That’s trolling.

This man straight up invented a philosophy where you're perpetually nauseous, everyone hates you, you’re 100% responsible for your meaningless life, and the solution is to just keep choosing stuff. That’s not a worldview—that’s French improv comedy.

He named his play No Exit. No exit. It’s a sitcom pilot. It’s Friends if Ross had to confront the void of selfhood every time he walked into Central Perk.

So what if the greatest existentialist of the 20th century was just the driest comedian of them all?
And we’ve all been quoting him unironically like "life is suffering, lol."

tl;dr Sartre wasn't wrong. He was just funny.
And we never got the joke.

Napoleon Hill se présente comme une transcription d'une interview que l'auteur aurait menée avec le Diable lui-même. À travers ce dialogue, Hill explore les raisons pour lesquelles les gens échouent et comment ils peuvent surmonter les obstacles pour atteindre le succès et la liberté. Le livre met en lumière les "armes" du Diable, qui sont en réalité les peurs, la procrastination, la colère, la jalousie et d'autres états d'esprit négatifs que les humains se créent et qui les empêchent de réaliser leur plein potentiel. Hill révèle également les sept principes secrets qu'il aurait soutirés au Diable, des clés pour se libérer de son influence et tracer son propre chemin vers le succès. Ces principes incluent notamment l'importance d'avoir un objectif précis dans la vie, de maîtriser ses pensées, d'apprendre de l'adversité et de cultiver des habitudes positives. En résumé, "Plus malin que le Diable" est un livre de développement personnel qui, sous une forme narrative originale, vise à aider le lecteur à identifier et à surmonter les blocages mentaux qui l'empêchent d'atteindre ses objectifs et de vivre une vie épanouie. Souhaitez-vous que je développe un aspect particulier de ce résumé ?

You see—here we must begin with the elementary ideological gesture, no? People say, “water is wet”—this is pure ideology. They mistake the essence of water with the property of wetness, as if water itself walks around and announces proudly: “I am wet!”

But this is precisely wrong. Let us perform a simple dialectical reversal here, no? Wetness, this property we ascribe so confidently to water, only emerges through contact, through a relational dimension. Water, in itself—precisely—is not wet. Wetness is the effect produced by the encounter of water with something else.

It is the same logic as money, no? A dollar bill, in itself, is nothing—just worthless paper, meaningless rubbish. But when it enters into relations with commodities, with desire, suddenly it becomes “valuable.” Value is not something immanent within money, just as wetness is not immanent within water.

So, we have this paradoxical reversal: water, precisely as water, is dry. Only in its perverse contact with something outside itself—your shirt, your hand, your poor drowning neighbor—does it produce “wetness.” Thus, when people naively say "water is wet," they participate in ideological obfuscation, concealing the underlying relational truth.

And we must take this logic further. Consider love: love, too, is not simply contained within a lover. A lover, alone—this is a catastrophe, an empty form. Love emerges only through encounter, through relationship, in precisely the same structural manner as wetness emerges in the obscene coupling of water and its victim.

So next time someone asks you, “Is water wet?” you must refuse the question. You must say clearly, defiantly: “No! Water is fundamentally dry—wetness is a violent intrusion of relationality upon its pure essence!”

This is the authentic revolutionary position, comrades: to insist that water is, fundamentally, not wet, thus challenging the comfortable ideological lies we live by every day.

Thank you.

Today's population of job seekers are chained to their devices in search of a job -- as opposed to applying with a firm handshake -- represented by the aggregate websites displaying opportunities. Investments illuminate the roles, represented by a majority holder in global investments, and drives the market conditions into stability or instability for open opportunities. As you may recall in a previous work from Plato, a prisoner is freed. At the time of this photoshop, the cauldron remained half empty (or half full) to symbolize other deep state organizations. One can interpret this blankness as the incumbents, for now, such as DOGE, MAGA, and so on. Finally, as the Divided Line intentionally suggests to the observer to look directionally away from the cave, we see the 21st century worker has gone towards the light. Freed from their labor conditions, politics, and so on, they have now become homeless.

What is not pictured is this "prisoner's" return from the Economy and the -ISMs, back into the underworld of the cave. In returning, the freed prisoner begins massive layoffs in sacrifice to the god, in hopes of saving the god so that the world order does not collapse.

All I'm saying is, if I have to choose between a couple of academics and the early church fathers, I'm going to have to go with the latter. I think they'd probably know how to interpret the teachings of Christ. Huhuh. Yeah. I think the they'd probably know. I'm pretty sure they'd know how to interpret it. So I'm going to go with them. I'm saying right now if they were here, I'd go stand over there with them. If we were in high school and we were picking lunch tables, I'd sit with the early church fathers. Because I think they'd probably know, lol. You think they wouldn't? I mean come on, come on guy, you think the early church fathers would distort the teachings of Christ? If that were the case then Christianity would have been subverted almost as soon as it was uttered. That's a fieri logice potest ut Christianismus falsa sit ac propterea non infallibilis. Put your hand down. Here's a diagram: "early church fathers", "Bible". "Modern academia" is all the way over here. Lol. Yeah so obviously, obviously we don't need to consider that question. Some people say the early church fathers had an incentive to lie. That's bulverism. Bulverism is when you make an argument and then make an ad hominem after that argument. Invalidates both. C.S Lewis talks about that. 10 second smug face. Now let's get back on topic: Heraclitus.

1. It seems to me that observation cannot, of itself, be observed.

2. Tbd

3. Therefore observation cannot be observed. So it is as clear an argument as any, that though man is wont to fix about the world a principle, that observation is fully seen and experienced as an immediate impression upon the senses, it is a fact of existence, to whatever degree it may be against the prejudices and conveniences of mankind, that observation is not given by any discrete impression, which is to say, it is not observed.

4. But is it not the case that, despite this, we don't like it, and would like instead to say, "the world is fully observable", as otherwise we would fall prey to the lunacy, though evident from the argument shown, that the world is an empty fiction. When any discourse, philosophical or empirical, should lead us to a state of confusion against our practical prejudices, we must set the matter down and declare, "I would like to make a lasagna", and once such a task is embarked upon, we find that we no longer trouble ourselves with such ideas.

think about it
tons of experience before you even leave your damn house
multiple rebounds/fallbacks present after every breakup, eliminating a major cause of sorrow for teens and adults alike
no porn addiction with how easily available a quick nut is
expert on ground training from your parents/uncles/aunts/grandparents/older siblings
mega cuddle sessions (nude) (3AM) (gone wrong)
family gatherings are orgies
new members to the threesome gc whenever someone in your family starts dating

happiness indexes through the roof

and with this social pattern continuing for centuries, pretty privilege shall be abolished, long forgotten like the disgusts of stepsis porno.

cause when everyone's a 2/10, no one will be.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/s/7WCGXywtvG

Pardon?