Too many of you are at the early stages. You have no idea.

Plato is all you need.

The mistake is treating philosophy like self help

>>24483553 (OP)
Simply don't read about modern age idealism. It's that easy.

>>24483553 (OP)
imagine being moved this much by opinions of other people

Our highest insights must – and should – sound like follies and sometimes like crimes when they are heard without permission by those who are not predisposed and predestined for them

pseud faggot

once you plunge, you can't stop

>>24483564
This. The only thing that should move you to read philosophy is the desire of knowledge and nothing more. If you can't handle new philosophic ideas, then you shouldn't read philosoohy at all.

>>24483553 (OP)
After a certain point, knowledge has to be augmented by action.

You forgot the stage after the nihilism black pill is that you bash your head against the wall and trick yourself into believing in god again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8u3P7Xqlvo

>>24483833
based actor

>>24483553 (OP)
Honestly, philosophy can be boiled down to the circle jerking of repackaged concepts and ideas that are truncated forms of phenomenological experiences. It's the taco bell of ideas, which one are you going to order, the crunchwrap supreme or the mexican pizza? I'm making myself hungry just thinking about it.

>>24483559
The worst of all time

>>24484201
I think I'm gonna trust philosophy professors more than you

>>24484227
Trust the science. It's safe and effective

>>24483553 (OP)
Wrong causality. You are not depressed because you do philosophy. You are a lonely depressed loser in the first place and that's why you desperately try to find meaning in philosophy and why you have too much time to waste with philosophy. Keep coping.

>>24484227
Philosophy professors will tell you that Plato was le bad and his Politeia was heckin fascist.

>>24484347
then why always start with him

>help me
if you really knew, you‘d knew there is no help and also no point in help

This meme was made by a redditor who had luckily read 2 books of philosophy

>>24483584
>muh heckin fictionerino!

>>24483833
I wouldn't recommend anyone put my writings into action unless they want to go to prison

I don't care about philosophy
I learn things not out of a desire to use my knowledge but simply because I want to learn

>>24483841
I believe in God more than you

>>24484198
Fatass

Philosophy turns into theism in the last phase. You realize that you cannot be an atheist in Abrahamic sense unironically. You want to choose something eventually.

>>24484338
>retarded non-contribution
>keep coping
Yeah punctuate your posts like it means something. Maybe come up with some more whacky catchphrases like "uhh eat my nuts dork" or "wallaballabingbang" right? You people see utility in so little and a value beyond direct utility in absolutely nothing and think it gives you the ability to tell people what is and isn't worth their time, when all it really means is that you think like a meth addict.

>>24485118
When I said "keep coping" it was meant rhetorically. I didn't ask for you to shit up the thread with even more pathetic cope.

>>24483559
I thought you said Paleo

>>24485118
Tell me, please, what do you find so shameful even in cesspools? I should be the first to be ready to clean out any cesspool you like. And it’s not a question of self-sacrifice, it’s simply work, honourable, useful work which is as good as any other and much better than the work of a Raphael and a Pushkin, because it is more useful.

>>24484392
Redditor trying to deflect from the fact that they are easily influenced by other men. Wake up and become your own person. It’s almost too late

>>24483553 (OP)
All the philosophy I need is the fact that I lead a happy life. Sucks to be you, doomer, lol

As someone who's writing philosophy, I'll tell you the hard fact.

If your philosophical questioning doesn't directly trace back to childhood curiosity ("why phase") then you're not qualified to do philosophy. To be a philosopher, you shouldn't even have to read philosophy to interrogate your philosophical positions and worldview. You should be able to open your eyes, take a look at your own subjective life as it is and make conclusions from there. Nobody who starts with a more conventional worldview and then gets influenced by some fucking book is actually going to advance the search for truth. If you have the unchecked assumption that big names, professionals and supposed geniuses know better than you and can think for you, that's a good sign you're not qualified to pursue philosophy.

>I want to know whether to believe in god!
What's god? Why should you pursue the question? Shouldn't you have solid epistemological and ontological foundations first before pursuing those socially contrived issues? How do you understand your mind and senses and why?
>I want to find my ideology and get Xpilled!
So you want to find ideal objectives for people and leaders in society? What's an ideal objective? What things are good, bad or neutral and why? How does that relate directly to your basic ontological positions?
>I just want to be happy, bro!
Drink some water then, nigger. Almost all happy people are not intellectual at all. Truth is sacred; pursue it with honest intentions.
>I want to know stuff and be smart and impress people!
Are you repulsed by the idea of dying without knowing the truth? Would you still need to know if you were incapable of communicating anything intellectual of substance? If not, just get a job.
>I fucking love philosophy!
Academic disciplines are concepts cobbled together for convenience. There's no such thing as science, art, mathematics, basket-weaving. There's only one subject and the word "philosophy" doesn't do it justice. It's just a sound you make with your mouth. One subject, one life, one reality. Blink and you'll see it. Blink and you'll miss it. If you stop and forget everything you know, this principle is immediately self-evident.

To be philosophically minded, you have to have a persistent conceptual perception of opacity in belief, be axiomatically prepared to question and compare interpretations of any entity. Even if you want to go about rejecting it, you should at least be able to learn formal logic and identify fallacies without knowing about them first, otherwise whatever verbal capacity you have is handicapped, perhaps more fit for poetry.

>>24485982
Lol

if you haven’t reached him, sit down.

>>24484535
That was the last phase for you. Your mind cannot go beyond that.

>>24483553 (OP)
It peaks in picrel, which means it's never started to begin with. A full back circle unless you're willing to quantify the amount, now it's about how many circles you can do, which is transfiguring your thought into a higher dimension essentially.
f(x) = I*t*y where I is your intelligence (a constant), t is time and y is your knowledge and understanding, Logos. Once f(x) reaches a certain threshold where f(x) > X, it loops back on itself; f(f(x)) = I*t*y(I*t*y) branching into infinity.

There is no theoretical "end", no bottom of the cup, no theism or God waiting for you like many midwits like you to believe, it's a never ending journey of doubt and mystery.

>>24483553 (OP)
Just be a schizo-autist that has the correct broad ideas about everything and study the right material about the right aspects of everything and then make a new religion to solve all of the problems of modern industrial civilization that is a comprehensive worldview that explains everything.

>>24486264
Do not use mathematical notation ever again.

>>24483841
literally this, i am not rich nor fortunate and neither are most. i truly regret reaching this point but i hope to find some use out of it

>>24486305
Yeah yeah right, I was going to add some notation with superscript but I didn't know how to add it, a bit of my fault I admit.

Ecclesiastes 1:17 - 18

>And I set my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is grasping for the wind. For in much wisdom is much grief, And he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Great job rekka.

>>24485753
>Paleo
Name a better diet.

>>24486372
chaditerranean

>>24484338
trvke

>>24486264
Forgive me for the faggy dilation. I'm procrastinating.
If your central conclusion is that it's a never ending journey of doubt and mystery then at least some clarified version of that can function as a foundation for a better philosophical answer. A recognition of a lack of knowability, calculability, certainty, of indisputable principles is characteristic of many different philosophical systems. One could easily understand this circular analogy and accomodate it as an indication of truth rather than futility. Absurdity, paraconsistency etc? In that case, it's apparent that simple principles underlying reality can at least be crudely expressed at finite length. But the equation implies that the product of time and understood knowledge are insufficient factors with intelligence to reach satisfactory answers, implying a conflation of finding foundational axioms with finding an impossibly large amount of knowledge. Even if that's right, the claim is bold juxtaposed with the conclusion.
That's all superfluous though because the foundation of this argument is actually more about intelligence. The intelligence variation within humans is by definition within humans; we're intelligent compared to other animals and intelligent people are so compared to dumb humans but that doesn't make us intelligent beings in a general sense. IQ scores are calculated based on averaging and comparing, not quantifying something the same way you would distance, so it's unknown whether your recursive loop is caused by human limitation or not. A hypothetically more capable brain might not have this doubt and mystery but we'd be too stupid to see it, like cats and dogs. We may hope to accidentally dip close to the truth, or that we're still too young or primitive like the ancients, waiting to evolve.
Then you're dazzling verbal-skewed /lit/ posters with relatively basic calculus, emphasizing intelligence, pulling fancy words like Logos and using wierd sentence structure and abstract language as a condescension move because that's appropriate to 4chan. It incriminates us all as a little stupid just to be screwing around on this dusty old strip club of a site.

>>24483553 (OP)
>>24483564
Pursuing knowledge for some masochistic end is just as superficial as pursuing knowledge for self-help. Both mindsets desire knowledge not for its own sake, but to instead emulate whichever external mediator they admire.

>>24485926
BASED

full chart btw

>>24483553 (OP)
philosophy is ultimately just mental masturbation and the search for cope
>I can't find a gf
I need to find a philosophy that says sex and companionship is bad
>I'm weak
I need to find a philosophy that makes being weak good

>>24483559
add hegel and laozi

>>24485812
I don't use reddit

>>24487090
Ah yes, masturbation. The thing that got us out of the stone age. Very true.

>>24485982
>If you have the unchecked assumption that big names, professionals and supposed geniuses know better than you and can think for you, that's a good sign you're not qualified to pursue philosophy.
Not an assumption. I know it to be true for everyone currently alive.

hang on

>>24488627
Science got us out of the stone age. Philosophers are trying to drag us back to the stone age.

>>24490015
At one time, masturbation was science.
It's an innovation based on observation.

>>24486607
I can also put things other people do and say it's bad
>those who seek an equilibrium in everything don't get deep in anything, and thus are shallow
>those who maximize practical benefits in what they read don't have the curiosity of a deep thinker
etc etc etc, I don't listen to that hack of a nigger

>>24483584
>>24485812
/thread

case in point I was hospitalized because schizo ideas I developed independently. now I'm fine _THOUGH_.

>>24483553 (OP)
I'm not the first to say this but Schopenhauer's writing comfort me greatly.

>>24487090
>>24490015
You haven't avoided philosophy, you've just taken a particular philosophy as axiomatically true and then grown petulant at the thought someone might question it. This is akin to placing some scientific theory out of bounds for discussion and assuming its truthfulness even when it may well be wrong. It's not a path towards the kind of society you're exalting science for having made in the first place.

>>24490400
Spare us your reddit platitudes, please.
>le every worldview is a "philosophy"
>le every philosophy must be le axiomatic
>le philosophy is about le truth
You shouldn't talk about this topic while being that ignorant.