That whole era of people saying "you should work on yourself first, and the rest will align". Hypocrites.We come out of the womb needing everything to be given if surviving is the goal. And somehow at some point, you hear that you need to focus on yourself and not others.Well what do you think ends up happening? If you focus on yourself purely, you realize how everything in your existence is either tied to others, the void, or a god. Remove everybody else from your existence right now, what is in your head, what happens to your memories, what skill do you have to survive 20 days by yourself when the stock of pasta runs out from the local supermarket?Oh well sure, you can always move on since you're alone, you'll find stuff until you naturally die from your old age.So what is this life about, purely surviving at the cost of what others produce? But they said it was about yourself. What are you without the seeds – none.And the irony of people who understand this, and from above play people like pawns, creating the materials and services these pawns need to pursue their surviving, while exponentially sucking their existence out of their body.The human race has no fucking idea of what it is. Everybody has its definition. Let me tell you, humanity is not something you can define with words, a bit like love. You can get near it, you can circle it, make a frame for it, but its true existence lies in the same matter that is used to do everything to service humans and love.Down to our dreams the humanity is told to refrain fantasy and act like a manufactured product, not with boundaries, but with codes. Programmed in service of what they crave, but only to be deviated to "the self".My problem is clear, I'm still stuck in that binary "human/non human". Because I keep trying to find someone not to fill the desires, but to understand what it is, at least close to. And the world tells me "it's not exterior to you, it's in you". Yet these same people need water, the sun, oxygen, particles of life. And you're telling me humanity, love, is not to be found exterior to me? Hypocrites.The misery of the philosophe is to have seen what people pretending to be "human" are. Not imperfection, but lack of courage and truth. Shutting the innocent speak of children, hiding dust under the rugs, pretending. And I'm victim to that mirroring.The paradoxe is that the less you are sure about being human, the more you are. Behind the word, a pathetic pastiche so often used by the worst beings in terms of hypocrisy.An infinity of elements that joins into 1 thing, and that thing, that some of us felt, that some of us will deny, this is humanity, as it is so many other things.You are all objects, I am an object. And to become human is to understand that.>discussions of philosophy that take place on /lit/ should be based around specific philosophical works to which posters can referI'm the worker and the source is my post. Fuck you still thank you.
I wouldn't describe looking inside yourself and focusing on self-improvement before trying to mess with the world as "focusing on yourself and not others." If you actually read any philosophy and weren't just going off stuff you "heard" you might've found that one popular tenets is that the philosopher should come down out of the clouds and mingle with the people because it's good for both the people and the philosopher.
>>2507073590% of angry crash outs online are over misapprehensions like this. ironic that OP talks about focusing on the exterior, but didn't think to leave his own brain and engage with the actual things he thinks he's criticisng
>>25070643>"you should work on yourself first, and the rest will align">you hear that you need to focus on yourself and not others.That's not what that means, or at least I've never heard anyone mean it in this way. The advice usually says to focus on yourself in the sense of figuirng yourself out before you try to figure out external stuff. The proverbial "clean your room before you make public policies, bucko".>....these same people need water, the sun, oxygen, particles of life. And you're telling me humanity, love, is not to be found exterior to me? Hypocrites.There's nothing hypocritical about that. There exists an internal reality and an external one and they form a continuous feedback loop. The idea that love must be external because water is external has nothing to do with philosophy.>humanity is not something you can define with wordsAgreed. But then the following cannot be true:>>>You are all objects, I am an object. And to become human is to understand that.
>>25070735Says who, says what?>>25070745Can you elaborate please?>>25070755>figuirng yourself out before you try to figure out external stuffThis is impossible. The reality happens all at the same time, but to be sequential in the order of processing it is an illusion. It's a bridge, a mirror, were things are exchanged and perceived at the same time. The best we can do is using our currently designed brain to focus on one part or another part.We think sometimes that our reality is 1 thing at a time by how we feel it, but that's a limitation of our senses. In truth, I say humanity is not necessarily being everything, but realizing sequential happenings are just an abstraction of reality, and that getting closer to an understanding of things happening at the same time from both side of a bridge, is what makes us truly human, beyond what we think of "how much" of an human we already are.>The idea that love must be external because water is external has nothing to do with philosophyIf love exists because it's been defined, therefore it has a place in philosophy. Thought my statement don't talk about love that "must" be exterior. Just that is is exterior, and interior too. And I'd argue even "in-between".>humanity is not something you can define with words>Agreed. But then the following cannot be true:>>>You are all objects, I am an object. And to become human is to understand that.An entity can be several things at the same time. Humanity, in what I'm trying to convey, lies in the paradoxe of things, not on one side of a multitude of parameters.This is a definition beyond what is commonly described as human, a definition that is to me closer to truth. Humanity lies in the convergence of parameters, not in isolated parameters. But I could be wrong.
>>25070643Well, you're right that people need each other, but today it's reduced to just the pragmatic benefit we get from each other. People need love as much as they need pasta from the supermarket. It's something Divine and not subject to definition.However, there are saints who focus on God and can commune with him without contact with other people, but those are exceptions.I know I didn't answer your question, but the answer would go something like this: "Find God within yourself and you will gain the whole world."
>>25070796>The reality happens all at the same time, but to be sequential in the order of processing it is an illusion.>The best we can do is using our currently designed brain to focus on one part or another part.Which is why the recommendation is about priorities and focus, not about discreet temporal sequences. Nobody's telling you to reach inner peace before you can drink water lol. Anon you could clearly figure it out, why poke sticks into your own wheels?>>The idea that love must be external because water is external has nothing to do with philosophy>If love exists because it's been defined, therefore it has a place in philosophy.Sure. But [the idea that love must be external because water is external] has nothing to do with philosophy. Which is what it seems you implied by calling out "hypocrisy" of people at once drawing external factors (like water) and pointing out love isn't to be sought among them.>Humanity...lies in the paradoxe of things>This is a definition...Definitions have to be consistent, which paradoxes by definition cannot be. If you think humanity is paradoxical, more power to you, there is definitely something to this intuition, but I would discourage you from mixing intuitions and definitions. In my language, there is even a saying "to confuse expressions with impressions", meaning a state of personal confusion.
>>25070807Thank you anon.>>25070808I think we'll agree to disagree. Your first answer letting me something to chew on and continue my way, thanks.But on the paradoxe:>Definitions have to be consistent, which paradoxes by definition cannot beThis is to me exactly the core of the problem that makes it so hard for me to not lose myself again and again as time passes.A paradoxe, is consistent in its inconsistency. 2 contradictory statements, that result in something true and existing.Love (let me philosophize about it one last time), true love, the thing you cannot define, yet know to be true, is a paradoxe. And only by knowing this paradoxe exists, by having witnessed it and know it to be true, you are in truth "human".It can be misinterpreted, abused, derived, yet the place is there, in the paradoxe. And the paradoxe is that I could be wrong, but I'm not.Rant over I'm gone thanks everybody.
>>25070830>Nobody's telling you to reach inner peace before you can drink water lolActually that's not a bad idea. I'll try.
>>25070643You generated this with an LLM didn't you?
>>25070796>Says who, says what?Much of the philosophy you've been too busy being a pseud on 4chan to read
>>25070830>2 contradictory statements, that result in something true and existing.The reality from which they were derived is something true and existing. Once you reduce the reality to propositions and the propositions don't cohere, that is precisely when you are lost. You're trying to go outside the propositions while remaining in propositions. This only works in poetry.
>>25070836he's not a pseud, he's a budding schizo
