If you really want to talk about numbers, Stalin and Mao killed a lot of people during "peace".

As long as there are humans there will be human misery. I'd rather people value the promotion of human excellence (which involves mostly leaving people alone, according to me) instead of the prevention of human suffering. But that's just a preference, like all values.

I don't think the US, at least, is sustainable, but it will break before anybody ends consumerism.

I like your Gadsen flag.

I don't understand why somebody wouldn't adapt to and exploit the environment as it is like the killer apes they are instead of sacrificing the meaning of their entire conscious functioning to some christian-egalitarian idea of justice. Per Nietzsche: With the Christian God goes Christian morality. Get yours.

i guess ill find out when i die. why think about it till then?

lol beautiful. you might be interested in a book I wrote "the nordtbook: an introduction to chaotic evil" ...it's on amazon. I have an entry about "the seduction to nerddom" that basically talks about how eg jocks denigrate high IQ types to make the p***y off limits to them

It's simple: we evolved from small bands of apes. within these small bands of apes, we believed in something like justice. following urbanization, evolutionary group dynamics has been hijacked and pressed into the services of universal moralities and identity politics. read fm 3-24. if you can get a group recognized as "them" (ie, "not us"), feel free to commit any atrocities towards them.

lol I would say building castles of reason is a solipsistic/masturbatory fantasy and also that analytic philosophy is the worst offender in radicalizing the mind/body duality

I will occasionally joke "my brain serves my balls, not the other way around"

I didn't bother to wade into the mudfight but I know heidegger's "introduction to metaphysics" he implicitly praises the "resoluteness" of a certain nascent movement and says something about how America and the USSR are "metaphysically identical". My understanding is that he only stopped supporting the Nazis when they lost.

I've read Evola. Wow.

I would characterize myself as some kind of "anti-modern" thinker, but neither along the lines of capital T tradition or whatever heidegger's project was.

One thing I definitely do not like among perennial types is the the assumption that all premodern thinking had the same aim/character. I pre-ordered Neil Price's The Viking Way

Hopefully by the end of the year he'll put in a challenge and get an independent doc to check me out. I think my odds are pretty good; no violence in 12 years unless you count defending mental health workers, which there's probably no record of. I've got some black marks for more or less serious mischief (sneaking into offices to use the internet, getting buzzed on hand sanitizer) but if the question is: "is he dangerous to himself or others?" I think it might work out.

Utter submission to the authorities running the mental health system, from doctors to orderlies. If I, as a mental health patient, have a problem with the authorities, I am a priori wrong.

I'm just locked up because I was violently mentally ill over a decade ago. It doesn't matter how stable I am, the state sees me as a liability and they will never unilaterally recommend my release. I have a lawyer working on it.

I'm quite sure many of the decisions made in the mental health system similarly have nothing to do with mental illness but rather of control.

And I mean, I know what you're talking about with people who seem normal but are nursing some, say, religious interpretation of psychosis.

It's been a while since I've questioned my treatment....I've found that what they want is basically utter submission. Basically every decision I make is judged according to a "medication working/medication not working" binary. I used to protest that the contents of my thoughts made a difference (they have changed quite a bit) but basically it's a moot point. During periods where I was fighting with my doctors I have been off all meds for months and they weren't able to get an order to forcibly medicate because I was presenting no symptoms. And just general things about how little information they use to diagnose and prescribe and things like that. I've been in the system 9 years and it's totally ridiculous. I don't really care anymore, and anyway, the point seems not to help people but rather either imprison them or mark them for increased government attention. That would happen with some system even if it wasn't mental health--the public wants certain people removed from society. And just about everybody I'm locked up with, I don't disagree with the idea of locking them up. I think the whole enterprise is of limited scientific validity (although not none) and it's being pressed into the service of public order. But I don't say anything about it, because questioning the system in any way is "symptomatic" or "delusional".

I've just seen a lot of folks in the mental health field hide behind their credentials when they can't answer a question.

The "act" of philosophy was something I tried to touch on in another thread. It's all well and good to have a "truth", but how does one live with it?

I'm a Nietzschean, so I don't care much about the "truth". If I need to think about that, I'll think scientifically, but that's not usually why I'm thinking. And Devans99's mechanistic answers, although I more or less agree with them, are totally charmless. It's hard to think of those answers as informing a course of action. One of the ways Nietzsche described philosophers of the future was as "experimenters". And that seems good to me. Why not experiment with ways of living? Western Civ is dying anyway, and maybe the seed I plant will evolve into a culture. I don't think human knowledge is worth much, except as a tool for power (it is true to the extent it works). All there is to me in life is my biological functions: consume resources, protect myself, procreate and raise the young. I've taken each of these things a little farther, eg "raise the young" includes trying to establish traditions for my family/clan.

I pretty much leave people alone to their business. I don't care if they agree with me unless I need them to. Anyway, that's what philosophy is to me: given death, what should my life be?

I grew up on a farm that did conventional agriculture. I don't want to go into farming, although money considerations might compel me to do so.

Small farms mean poor farmers and even poorer laborers. What small farms can produce (eg organics) is essentially a luxury product since conventional options are so cheap. I'd like to have a hobby farm, set up a local barter network, but make a living off it? Forget about it. Top-down? Grrrr.

It's just like the energy problem: no matter what you do to the supply side, you won't be able to influence the demand side. Americans like cheap food. Hardly anybody thinks about where food comes from. Small farms can't scale up quickly, and even if they did, food would be 3 or 4 times more expensive (rough guess) than it is now. As you see in the Arab Spring, when wheat went astronomical, expensive food still destabilizes populations.

Conventional farmers do it conventionally not because they're evil, but because they are trying to stay in business.

"ain't no mercy, got that purple lambourghini lurkin'/don't you know that p***y worth it?"

--Rick Ross

I feel a fundamental irony towards everybody who wants to "change the world" or thinks "if we got rid of X, the world would be paradise". Very universalist, very Christian. It's incalculable how much the modern world owes to the christian tradition but I would say Luoco's missionary zeal is very old-fashioned. It also seems to be in poor taste.

I almost exclusively deal with people who are christian and have a much smaller speaking vocabulary than I do. I don't try to come off as of superior intelligence to them, that would just make them resent me. Most of my day to day affairs can be settled without coming to an agreement as to whether or not there is a god.

A lot of this seems like politics with a slightly higher IQ. I'd like to see some truly original thinkers.

So, you're saying you paid a lot of money so that you can claim you are an "expert"?

I used to be, like, completely insane. Don't make excuses for yourself. Tyrannize your brain and only allow it to entertain what a psychiatrist would find kosher.

If you have no idea how to achieve such discipline, take CBT seriously.

One of the biggest problems with mental health is that, in general, nobody can force anybody to change. It's such a problem that most people think a psychiatric diagnosis is permanent. Lazy comparisons to diabetes abound.

If you want to change yourself bad enough, if you don't allow yourself to fail, you'll succeed. Otherwise you won't respect yourself.

"But it certainly is Libertarian heaven."

Oh, "certainly", is it?

joke's on you: I am a barbarian who hates civilization!

Look I mean seriously dude, a lot of people are already doing "condescending evangelizing atheist with a total lack of nuance in mission". Try another character.

I don't understand why people hate the elite instead of wanting to become elite.

I have similar problems with the sort of thinking you talk about. Absolute freedom is a ridiculous idea.

Unquestionably Existentialism has Christian antecedents, from Kierkegaard to Heidegger. Leo Strauss makes an interesting comment on the difference between plato's philosopher and Nietzsche's, which is something like "Nietzsche's philosopher is an heir to the bible; to him, philosophizing is intrinsically holy." Neitzsche's adventure from nihilism to global tyranny is admirably if quite artificially organized in "the will to power" (his notes).

My approach to nihilism is: I'm going to try to be the best animal I can be, with as much power as suits my purposes. I know it's likely all meaningless, but nobody can take some position outside of human life and judge whether or not it "ought" to be lived.

What makes you different from a crusader?

I once met a kid who was training to be a nurse in america. He spent years 0-16 in somalia at the height of the 90s chaos. I mentioned I had been to prison and he was dead serious asking me: "wasn't that scary?" Even in Mogadishu the coca cola factory kept operating. Because apparently nothing goes with khat better than an ice cold coke.

I'm not a libertarian, I'm a blood on the floor anarchist. I think the us is in terminal economic decline, and I'm already living in that future. I think it people will have to be more honest with themselves under those conditions.

I would like to point out as well that the social kabuki in a violent environment eg prison is very interesting because it actually is meaningful in a way school isn't.

Edit: I wouldn't go to somalia anyway because I don't speak the language or know anything about the culture; why put myself at such a disadvantage? Beyond the cities muslim elders have power....why would I want to live under them? Anarchy doesn't exactly mean what the greek would suggest: it just means that power is more fluid.

lol that attitude is exactly why people hate supposed intellectuals

Why do you feel compelled to "save the masses", as it were?

I think you used poor judgement in both situations, compared to the example I gave.

No, no, that's just it: it is very possible to control yourself if you've been trained; in fact if you're doing well, you feel the ultimate, non-thinking, robotic flow--total control of the situation. But coming down from adrenaline is a bitch. I get all shaky and anxious.

There is a huge difference between violence from anger and violence "because I have to". I've only twice in my life used violence from a place of anger and it's not at all the same feeling. It's my belief that emotions probably evolved to help us as a social creature, and I've done much self-analysis of anger and find it's always because I think some social norm has been violated ("they can't treat me like that"). Higher brain functions tell me there are no objective social norms and so I should expect them to operate for me. Rage is totally different from the sort of reptillian ruthlessness (and yet, you know when to stop) that happens when you appraise a situation instantly and realize violence is necessary.

I'm not denying that discretion is often the better part of valor. I also would rather have sex than fight.

But really, I have to take the fact that I am a violent male seriously and try to use it in constructive ways. The last time I was violent, I took down a guy bigger than me who was assaulting female staff at an institution. Then the male staff showed up. They were saying to me afterwards simultaneously "thank you" and "really, you can't do that".

The other thing is that under adrenaline, you revert to how you have trained/past experiences. I know what the zen warriors were talking about with "no mind". You don't think, you just do. It's very liberating, and I have a hard time taking seriously people who haven't experienced that.

I've been psychotic, and I've been (am, pretty much) institutionalized.

I had a lot of bizarre perceptions but I don't think there was any "reality" to them beyond the contents of some subconscious part of my brain. Like dreams. I know many people who still think their eg hallucinations were some kind of "gift". I thought so at the time. It's my opinion that the reason so many psychotic individuals use religious language is that our society lacks a vocabulary to talk about extreme mental states. Which is maybe for the better, because we don't take mystics very seriously.

I also want to point out that most of the institutionalized people I have met are very self-absorbed, inconsiderate, and frequently reality-denying, not to the point of delusions but just...refusing....to pick up social cues, eg. I do think at some point the lack of "honesty", more or less, is a moral problem and not a psychiatric problem.

The thing is that society always finds some way to remove, marginalize, or isolate undesirables. We used to be more honest and just stone people to death. Now we warehouse them in prisons and institutions.

How many of you have acted under the influence of adrenaline when there was a threat to your life? And used violence to neutralize the situation?

How many of you are good dancers?

I hate to be the jerk Nietzschean who's actually been violent and been in the game and been in prison(well, no I don't), but there are higher "states of being" than keeping the peace and reasonable discussion. Just like Nietzsche, I can't respect a god that doesn't dance. Just like Heidegger, I believe that war is superior to peace. The noble class has always been the warrior class (well, probably not) for a reason.

I define "power" as basically influence over another's decisions--and it's a matter of degree with each person. I don't think a great deal of rationality is necessary. It doesn't take a lot to have a high degree of worldly influence and independence: ask a gang leader.

This is sort of a joke. But I'd say communism is the idea that you are always morally obligated to side with the loser. What shocks me about Mao is that he can write such an insightful class analysis of kuomingtang china, and not love that complexity and believe in the monotheism of "the worker"

The thing is, if you follow skepticism to the depths, you realize what shaky ground you're on. I look at what people think about the stock market and there's a lot, even mostly, non-rational. I default to the empirical but the ultimate questions can't be solved by it. All authority is subjugation, so do you want to be on top or on bottom? There's no ultimate outside.

T Clark: For most of my life I wanted to be a videogame designer. So that's how I think of it. Yes, I'm putting myself at the top because I'm doing it mostly for myself, but I want to give other people something to live for, a game to play, that they can't easily get from mainstream culture. I don't believe in building a structure where everybody but me is miserable. Some will be, some won't.

Of course it's just an expression of my will to power. Do you have a suggestion as to what other thing I could honestly be interested in? =)

Well, I appreciate the responses.

My life circumstances are very unusual. I don't have much internet access. I had enough to post this, check on how it was doing, and then days later reply. I have to be prudent about how I use my limited internet time, but for the time being, this site is still worth a bit of it to me, so I'm posting this. Anyway, it's better for me to consider a response rather than banging something out while my hackles are up. I'm not really here to argue, I'm mostly immune at this point to persuasion, and I'm not looking for prospects here. I'd like to see opposing arguments to see if there's anything I need to consider. I expected opposition, but more in an amiable "lolz, if that's what you want to do, I mean I guess. But here's the choice I'm making and why I feel justified." Reality wasn't that. I keep catching myself expecting too much out of reality.

I look at the post I started with as a communication failure, although it's probably a useful failure, so bluntly stating my animating philosophy, and it was also a very instructive failure. That kind of bluntness is more or less acceptable and even salutory when we're talking about the relatively anonymous internet. But I don't live on the relatively anonymous internet. It shouldn't surprise you that if this is approximately what I think, I spend most of my life concealing that. In my day-to-day life, I'm polite to a fault, many people like me, and those who don't, I do what I can to be invisible to them. I'm not trying to blend in. People who know me know I'm quite unusual (but good-mannered), and the choices I make with my appearance are suggestive of transgression but only for those who are perceptive. I'm very playful with signals like that, and I'm always looking for confirmation (and hostility). On the grossest physical level, I often draw attention away from my above-average face and towards my respectable torso and tremendous calves, but one signal I'm not sending is that I think it's worthwhile to spend time chasing numbers at the gym.

Part of my intent with going on like that for a bit is that by showing what care and consideration I put into my appearance, I try to put into everything. That's what I got mostly from Leo Strauss: the communication of a philosopher to the "city" is highly problematic, unless one desires, like Socrates, to be a martyr (or like a supposed Son of God I could name).

I've also got a profile on a dating site, and my provisional strategy had been an over the top display of my genetic fitness, learned skills, taste, and desire to be a father. From my mistake here, I'm trying a different tack and emphasizing playful collaboration there, although the project is explicitly declared as Family, although sub-goals might include such conversations as "ok, so: gender roles. what has been isn't working anymore. What works for us?"

I want to reiterate my gratitude for this site existing and its role thus far in my education. =)

All political arguments are aesthetic arguments are moral arguments are religious arguments.

Different moralities promote different strategies for cultural survival. Conflict between moralities is conflict over what culture has dominance among a people.

Decide what kind of "states of the soul" you want to promote, and you will have your morality. Keep in mind you don't have to be egalitarian, ie, different classes can have different moralities.

The honest thing to call this is "polytheism", but we're all far from honest.