PUAHATE-SLUTHATE-LOOKISM-RYAnFROM#misc

Joined January 2025
63 Photos and videos
"I TRUST IN THE HAND OF DIVINE PROVIDENCE, UNTIL SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF MY CONTROL HAPPENS."
21
"ENDLESS" IS FAR TOO GRAND FOR WHAT IS ONLY APPROPRIATELY DESCRIBED AS SMALL IN MAN.
3
85
TODAY FEELS LIKE FRIDAY.
32
WHY MUST ONLY THE FAUNA OF THE CRETACEOUS PERIOD BE VENERATED? I ENJOY THE IMAGE OF LARGE PLANTS DEVOURING SMALL ANIMALS.
1
92
THE "PIETY" IN MY REFUSAL IS NOT IN MY ABSTAINING FROM THE ACT.
81
IT IS SAID THAT "BILLIONS MUST LOVE." THIS IS CORRECT, FOR THEY'VE NO OTHER CHOICE!
2
95
HOW MANY OF THOSE CONSIDERED BY MANY TO BE PERSONIFICATIONS OF "HUMAN INTELLIGENCE" CREATED BODIES OF WORK ATTEMPTING TO PROVE THEIR BEING HUMAN?
1
75
The "purewhite" world has never been, and never will be, dirtied by "sinister forces beyond our understanding." What is true is that the dirty have suggested that a "purewhite" world is dirty.
Things fall apart. The once purewhite world is constantly dirtied by sinister forces beyond our understanding. The snow was whiter when I was a child, when I still believed things could be better. Now it's just gray slush
3
58
The "yourself" that many retreat to is "the monoculture".
Not to be mean but so many people just don't understand the world. There's no such thing as an "archetypal counterculture", that's an obvious oxymoron. "Hipsters" and "slackers" and "punks" were tendrils of the old monoculture, and the monoculture is gone. You have to be yourself
1
5
216
"NOT TO BE MEAN, BUT SO MANY PEOPLE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND LE WURLD."
3
107
MY PET FIGHTS AND ALWAYS LOSES.
1
99
AND WHAT SHOULD ONE INVESTIGATE IN ONESELF BEFORE ADOPTING THE VIEW THAT ONE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THE DAILY LIVES OF "THINKERS" BEFORE ADOPTING THEIR VIEWS?
One should actually investigate the daily life of a thinker before adopting their views, because it’s impossibly to separate the art from the artist or the thoughts from their thinker. Assuming the green text is true, Kant’s moral theory is downstream from his own morals. We can see this in other so-called “philosophers.” Nietzsche and Descartes for example. Descartes was a deeply feeble man, relegated to his chambers for much of his life. Being well-to-do, he possessed servants to cater to his needs, but rarely was he able to do this on his own. It comes as no surprise then, that he would develop his mind-matter theory. His entire life was about things happening to him, and his only way of internalizing it being through his thoughts. Nitezsche, conversely, is an author defined by contradiction. Born a paraplegic and a lover spurned by his deepest attachment, he writes of strong men acting on their own whims and actualizing their passions for their own sake. Likewise does he deride the ancient philosophers for arguing and writing their wisdom… while doing the very same thing. He does this perhaps because he resents himself and the lot that life chose for him.
1
4
130
ALL BELIEFS ARE PREDICATED ON THE SAME CONDITIONS.
2
67
THE END HAS AN END.
4
86
THE END HAS NO END.
1
3
69
ALL OF MAN'S ENDS ARE PHRASED AS "BEGINNINGS", AND TO NO END ARE THEY!
1
69
MAN'S "INTELLIGENCE", AS GESTURED AT IN MOST PURSUITS, IS RELATIVE TO HIS SATING HIMSELF. MAN'S LULLS AND DESPAIRS, TOO, SATE HIM. MAN IS ALWAYS RATIONAL.
Replying to @unimaticus
Kant was about half way to good ideas. The problem is that his philosophy is great in theory and awful in practice. Humans like to cloak themselves in rationality. Humans are frequently not very rational.
2
74
I TRAVERSE A HELIX, A COVERING SPACE, OF THE MANY'S LABORED CIRCLES.
4
148