265
does sh.itjust.works allow criticism of CCP?
(sh.itjust.works)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2023
265 points (92.3% liked)
sh.itjust.works Main Community
7584 readers
1 users here now
Home of the sh.itjust.works instance.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I tried reading Warlock of the Magus World. I love the way people describe his character. Somehow though reading it was much harder. There was something coarse stopping me all the while and ultimately it wasn't giving me the good feel I usually get. I don't know what it was, maybe the different kind of motivation the character has. Which reminds me of RI, similar characters probably.
You know, it is so stupidly strange. As a kid, I was a snob metalhead, doing anything not to be "girly", I dressed black, carried a chain, wanted to be violent, read the "Bible of the Church of Satan" and I was like 10% is weird but the rest is awesome! And then I met the ideas of Stirner and was like "holy shit he's me!". My tastes in music are super aggressive and many claim it's not even music even though it's what I enjoy. And my tastes in literature are similarish to yours. These books have a lot of cool shit but they're pretty much aggression with sugar on top lmao.
So in my teenage ideas of superiority and manlihood I'd insult lgbt people, people who liked romantic stuff, any genre of music that was anything less than rock, and even tho I don't have that perspective anymore, my tastes in music and media have remained rather stable.
To switch from being all "waaaaar, weeaponnns, aggression is my music!" to watching soapy dramas of pink girls and boys in love. It's hard for me to understand how that happened but here we are.
I think it starts off kinda mid until he moves to like the central area next to his clan and the world opens up a bit more and he has more interesting things cooking. Yeah it's similar to RI, not evil characters but characters that will do evil things if it benefits them. Also the whole there are no eternal enemies just eternal benefits.
Yeah it is true that these books are basically that, though lots of more classic novels have tons of violence. Foundation was one where it was like "violence is the refuge of the incompetent" but then you realize that to avoid all violence you would literally need to have superhuman levels of intelligence and charisma like in the books with psycho history concept. So nowadays I like when there is conflicts/battle/wars since it makes far more sense.
I'm more into Stoicism, derivation of your own ideas from first principles, plato's scholar warrior/athlete. Egoism doesn't really align with my values probably runs more contrary to them then anything. I listen to anything that helps put me in a flow state and that I personally find enjoyable. Metal and rock are a bit too much to play while working/studying I really didn't get into music much as a teenager.
Funny enough my tastes haven't really changed from a teenager more like hyper focused to into particular aspects that I like and things I don't.
Egoism isn't like hedonism for me. Sometimes maybe. It's more of a realization of priorities, when you realize that 99% of what people tell you is important is actually completely irrelevant. Serve God, your country, morality, your family, your property, etc. You end up sacrificing your well-being for others, to externalities and ideas, many of which couldn't even be less important to you, and some of which are actually harmful. Egoism for me was discovering that it was not my parents' first concern to protect me from bullying, because they had their own lives too, and that everyone's important things are what's directly around them, and what's important to me is external to others.
Stoicism is not completely incompatible with egoism. I don't think they can be compared too well because I think they belong in different categories. I myself have taken a lot from stoicism. Egoism is more about prioritizing whatever you truly "want", "like" or "prefer" instead of what you "should" according to any one, thing or idea.
Ironically metal is what I use precisely for that purpose. If I'm too unfocused or anxious, I put on some black metal to calm down. It's like meditation that takes me right back to the basics.
I don't know which foundation you're talking about then. Maybe I just read it differently because I don't remember that. Then again it's been 15ish years since I read it.
Well the reason you care about those thing is because ingroup bias and psychological hard wiring to care about people that share the same genes as you. Also some of that sounds like I don't want to value those things just because it's popular to value those things. Though those things don't have to be and probably aren't independent from externalities of others. Seem to me a major fault with Egoism is thinking that people cannot share externalities. Though I don't really know much about it.
A part of Stoicism is also contributing positivity in some way to society. I'm not really a fan of anarchism as a whole, don't think it really solves anything and tries to state a solution to modern society by reducing it down to a more simplified form with less rules but doesn't prove to me that this leads to a better society/world.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/9658-violence-is-the-last-refuge-of-the-incompetent
You almost made me believe that I read that quote from somewhere else 😅
A major part of egoism is actually a union of egoists. It's not like we aren't social beings, or that we are unaffected by others and are unaffected by our effect on others. Regardless of any person's beliefs, humans in general are empathetic and gregarious.
Egoists might align with anarchism but I don't think that most egoists even think much about how to improve "society" itself. To generalize egoists is, in general, a bad idea, though, because it's a very generic concept that can fit into many many thought currents. Regarding society, every hierarchy "claims" you in a way. You belong to a ruler, to your family, to society, to civilization, to humanity, etc., Each of those categories impose certain duties on you.
It's like muslims have women cover themselves. Does belonging to society mean that they should follow these rules? Then there's the "outer society", human civilization, which is idealized here in the west as having something to do with free will and such, but this is a minority thought, and most people don't agree. So which of all the outer societes' rules should they follow? I think most prescriptive philosophical currents claim to be the "one true best way of doing things", and then you have to look at an index of 1397 major currents to find it, and you see the dislike count for the one you like and there's 5.5 billion dislikes for being too *insert pejorative descriptor*.
In the end society as an observable organism is real, but as a collective deserving loyalty, I think that's way more subjective.
Downloading this Foundation 7 book bundle.
Also, my favorite kdrama actress just starred in a new drama that was just released. "See You In My 19th Life". Seems I will have to obsessively binge that too.
U got any recommended readings on stoicism that are from this century? I tried reading Marcus Aurelius. It doesn't really explain the why of anything.