Ideas that have Fucked Me Up

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Solipsism - the belief that I am the sole primordial entity, and the exterior world is a product of my imagination. When I ever do converse with another person, I am just conversing with a different aged version of myself. Not the present self, but an abstract future or past self, from a tangent dimension; relearning the same lessons but in a new way each time - a triumphant symphony that echoes through the halls of eternity. This belief of “one thing existing” is not so much egotistical (in the common use of the word, not the technical) as much as it is terrifying.

Overanalyzing - peering through the cracks in my own existence; nothing but an ancestral heirloom - a collection of psychological traits which benefited my ancestors, and formed indents in my mind… dispositions in the cognition towards particular actions.

Masochism - inflicting pain (be it physical or psychological) on myself in order to transmutate it into unlimited power. My ultimate goal is to look back on my life as a tragedy, so I am able to be free of any sense of guilt or responsibility.

Duality - Interacting with the Shadow archetype (in the Jungian sense), and causing the ego to wage war against the Anima. Two selves - one powerful, but never real, only a becoming; one weak, but unavoidable, the true self, the inner child, unbridled innocence. They tear each other apart and merge together into a hermaphrodite - nothing but theatrical expression can be set as the goal for my actions after they merge. Like a Greek myth, where each character is a metaphor for mandatory characteristics of humanity.

Succubi - the feminine leeches I encounter throughout my life were the result of nothing more than my pursuit of finding my “inner self” (the Anima) in another person. She never existed, because she was me. The female body which I attached her to was, in the flesh, a parasite who planned on catalyzing my masculinity for potential offspring.

Isolation - becoming aware of the truth which I had so cleverly avoided in the past, and realizing that none of it ever functions properly once you have seen the mechanics of how it works. Why? Because we try to fix it. We try to improve it. We try to get rid of things that are not necessary, or things which reveal our all too human tendencies. Without ever realizing that it is necessary. Everything in the clockwork of our mind is required for human existence to even be possible, and none of it can ever be changed.

Immorality - We will lie, we will cheat, we will steal - and there is nothing we can do to stop it. All life (in a broader sense) is a matter of lying, cheating, and stealing. We kill things to eat them. We believe we are right when we are wrong. We cover ourselves with lies. And as Trent Reznor put it, once you know this “you can push it all out, and you can try to pretend, but you CAN’T CHANGE ANYTHING. You CAN’T CHANGE ANYTHING in the end.”

2

How about this one?

Man suffers because the basic condition of life is one of need, uncompensated need which is interpreted as suffering. But, in attempting to mitigate that need, to compensate it through personal ambition and striving, man discovers happiness. The problem is, happiness only exists as an oppositional counter force to suffering- which is the basic condition of life, and when suffering disappears so does happiness. Now man suffers in a new way, he suffers from the lack of happiness. The suffering of mankind mimics falsely the suffering of his bestial organism; so does his ambition, his striving, his affirmation of life. What motivates people? In a word, self-deception, self-effacement. The ambition to deny the reality of suffering through this hapless and meaningless striving and affirmation of happiness, which is only the false echo of bestial creation. Religion, contra Nietzsche, did not wage war upon the passions as a first order of business- it did so only insofar as the passions induced suffering. It’s true goal was, and is, to explain suffering away through a God-- to deny it.

3

Solipsism is a prime example of a really bad philosophical idea.

And I can’t even elaborate on that. It makes no sense and serves no purpose. I guess we think wee little kids are all solipsists. It works for them, I guess.

That’s gotta be difficult. Reason enough not to be a dualist, if you ask me. I’m not making fun of anyone. It’s just gotta be a difficult thing.

I always forget Trent Reznor when I’m listing the philosophers I have been most influenced by.

4

I like that a lot. Not only do I like the idea, but I like how you worded it so accurately.

5

It serves no purpose, or at least it serves no practical purpose when placed as a personal perspective and philosophy - you are correct.
But how does it not make any sense to you?
Its foundation is unavoidably sophistic, and skeptical of all knowledge, logic, reason, and proportion: How can we know anything?
Kant presumes the existence of a priori knowledge - which he had presumed in such a neo-Platonic manner- but how can we know the existence of such a thing if we have yet to verify its foundation? I would say that the existence of a priori knowledge is just a convenient assumption to make. You could even go so condescending as to call it a “self-comforting assumption”.

Difficult in what regard? It is not difficult to tolerate; it is actually a temporary tranquility to have them merge. However, you are correct in some regards: It is very difficult to achieve, and only comes when “both sides” of the battle agree to a temporary cease-fire and truce. Shortly thereafter, the humility fades and the battle resumes.

I hate being a dualist, and it is only in spite of the situation that I consider myself such.

6

Here’s one that really fucked me up:

They’ve killed Fritz! They’ve killed Fritz! Those lousy, stinkin’, yellow faries! Those horrible, atrocity filled vermin!

7

About the Succubi stuff, you really need to cut it out with that. Love is only a rarefied, spiritualized form of friendship. Real love I mean.

8

REALLY HARDCORE
DRAGO

9

Maybe you haven’t known enough of them to be able to establish the pattern

10

If it’s all just in my mind, I wouldn’t lose my car keys so often.

How can we not? It’s a stupid question.

And what foundation is that? Kant was a theologian, and a bad one.

11

I hate it when people dismiss solipsism as though it’s so obviously wrong that it can be dashed with a short single flippant remark.

It just shows no imagination or effort towards trying to find sense in it - like a prejudice that only works because of unwillingness to open your mind, which is frankly demoralising.

Why not simply consider that a sole mind wouldn’t want everything to be known, predictable, enjoyable, easy and unforgetable?

As for PN’s Succubi, that’s not my experience of females at all. I went through years of obsessing over finding someone who could receive me and who I would receive in return. I found I wasn’t pursuing finding myself, but rather I sought someone who fundamentally operated from a similar place to me, but towards somewhere different that was compatible with where I was going to and complementary to it. This would preserve our respective individualities and not mutually conflict. Many women down the line, through all the demoralising failed attempts, I found one, and now, the only trouble is compromise - which looked at from a more life-affirming angle is not a trouble at all.

Immorality is above all an opportunity. Being moral is simply to shape your immorality around certain situations to avoid long term unpleasantries and punishment.

Ascolo’s aphorism is something I would disagree with: yearning, longing, striving etc can all be incredibly exciting and exhilirating. Challenge and ‘being without’ is that rush that motivates everything you do at all, until it is jaded and in some cases finally obscured by failed attempts or revelations of previously unforeseen unrewarding outcomes. But this is what overanalysation gets you past, so you can perpetually adjust your direction for as long as your imagination is wide. People seem to hate overanalysing when they’re unable to separate bad associations from it through lack of ingenuity. I regard overanalysation as a pleasure and a privilege, even if just in itself. Isolation is something to look forward to for indulgence in this very activity.

12

Sil -

I am fifty-one years old, and have been pondering philosophical topics - nearly obsessively - since I was a teenager. Don;t be telling me I haven’t put enough effort into it.

I hate it when people think that philosophers can’t reach an occasional conclusion. About anything.

13

Solipsism is useless in my opinion, it’s founded in wild imagination so to speak and doesn’t really change anything; it’s like believing the moon is made of cheese. It is however the estranged cousin of another similar idea which tends to fuck me up, the idea that nothing beyond our experience and what is in reach (the relevant part of the universe solipsism proposes is a generation), matters.

That morality is and should be based on our own circumstances, that our nature is incredibly limited in contrast with our desires and that it’s easier to distinguish an average human being by measuring their ignorance rather than intelligence, and that life is a fucked up place where fucked up things have to happen…

All you can do is live…

14

I had this idea once that I could take on two bouncers at once… while drunk, even…

that idea fucked me up!

15

Ha ha! Good one! :smiley: =D>

16

But Silhouette does have a point – you cannot dismiss solipsism merely because there occur unpleasant or unknown events in our lives. This would in fact seem a necessary aspect of one’s experiences given that solipsism is the case, given the idea that we cannot know everything - for if we did, what would be the basis for new experiences? You might as well say that any novelty in life is proof against solipsism, which is equally invalid. The idea of absolute perfect knowledge of everything, even if only about oneself, is not a necessary part of solipsism. It could certainly be the case that the sole individual in existence, the “mind of all reality” is seeking itself, to increase its knowledge of itself and thus generates experience in the form of imagined reality and interactions with others and nature in order to derive, in terms of its reactions against these experiences, knowledge of its deeper essence.

Im not saying we ought to believe this, but I am saying that your critique is invalid, and that invalidity ought to be obvious to any philosopher, 51 years old or otherwise. Criticizing a small and unnecessary aspect of a theory does not amount to a criticism of that theory itself - unless you can demonstrate how absolute or perfect knowledge are necessary aspects of solipsism, which you have not done, and which you seem to consider unnecessary to do.

17

Sorry, Last Man. I’d respond, but I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about.

18

51 years old, a life of philosophy, and so basic a concept as logical necessity eludes you…?

19

The concept of logical necessity does not elude me, the meaning of your post does. Where do you define logical necessity?

20