Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

I don't get this. You all believe in demons and stuff? I'm too dumb to understand.

The 'And Stuff' is more apt, I mostly went with calling them demons to be facetious and potentially draw in some replies. 

 

Now I'm supposed to talk to real people. It's messy because they can't read my mind.

Anything they can't read from your mind you could just aim to communicate with them. Do this enough times and they'll grow to expect what you've explained to them, learning the patterns to watch out for that confirm your stories. 

If God doesn't exist, then what's the purpose of all this?

Why does there need to be a purpose? Do you see any other animals questioning the nature of purpose? 

It could just be a human instinct sublimating over living in a world where most of our questions have already been answered for us. 

There's nothing that irritates me as much as someone who doesn't know who arrogantly asserts what the answer is as if they did.

Arrogant displays with open ears has been my go to, it seems to inspire others to meet the challenge compared to a more passive voice. 

 YES. Dogs are capable of questioning their existence, what they are and who made them  <3

A lady gave her dog a talking push button pad that he could step on, and the beautiful creature actually used it to question the difference between our species  <3

He asked "what [is] mom?" and "mom [is a] dog?"

Mom answered "No, mom is a human."

The dog asked "Bunny [is a] human?"

Mom answered "No, bunny is a dog."

Bunny asked "y... y... y?"

IIrc, Bunny had at one point been introduced to a mama dog with a litter of puppies.

He understood motherhood.

Bunny also questioned what it is to be good  <3

Koko the gorilla was also quite a philosopher.

Prided herself on her good manners and mourned Robin Williams, who she was fortunate enough to meet before he died.

There are a few ape species, and marine mammals who are capable of this level of abstract reasoning.

Possibly elephants, as well.

But I would not have thought dogs  <3  That is SO amazing.

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

I don't get this. You all believe in demons and stuff? I'm too dumb to understand.

 

I view demons or whatever name you wish to call them as patterns of being. 

Hence, theological and spiritual language is a means to delineate these patterns of being. 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

The closest thing to that are a few essays I wrote on Lucretius De Rerum Natura. 

Wikipedia said:

The poem, written in some 7,400 dactylic hexameters, is divided into six untitled books, and explores Epicurean physics through poetic language and metaphors.

Namely, Lucretius explores the principles of atomism; the nature of the mind and soul; explanations of sensation and thought; the development of the world and its phenomena; and explains a variety of celestial and terrestrial phenomena. The universe described in the poem operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna ("chance"), and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities.

This sounds neat and strange, poetic physics that span for multiple books? 

 Metaphysics and Epistemology, I think.

An early variation on noumena vs phenomena?

(doo doo doo doo doo) Sorry can't help myself when I hear that word lol

AliceInWonderland said: 

Turncoat said: 

AliceInWonderland said: 

The closest thing to that are a few essays I wrote on Lucretius De Rerum Natura. 

Wikipedia said:

The poem, written in some 7,400 dactylic hexameters, is divided into six untitled books, and explores Epicurean physics through poetic language and metaphors.

Namely, Lucretius explores the principles of atomism; the nature of the mind and soul; explanations of sensation and thought; the development of the world and its phenomena; and explains a variety of celestial and terrestrial phenomena. The universe described in the poem operates according to these physical principles, guided by fortuna ("chance"), and not the divine intervention of the traditional Roman deities.

This sounds neat and strange, poetic physics that span for multiple books? 

Very neat and strange, and a large undertaking. 

Parmenides is just as strange given its poetic logic fused with lots of symbolism. 

I thank my experience of that 500 years of literature with making me a bit of a radical thinker compared to other people in academic circles. 

I've been exploring a lot of Dharmic thought recently, they have a huge Logical tradition that is also poetic and highly symbolic. 

Nyaya Sutras

Navya-Nyaya

Catuskoti

Also Lullism is beginning to catch my eye

 Eastern philosophy is interesting, yes.

I find it more work than I was willing to put in, tho.

A thousand gods on a thousand layers of a thousand flowers growing out of some chubby dude's belly button, and they all have a name and a function.

Too much thinking for me unless somebody's paying me lol

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

Turncoat said: 

Good said: 

i request to be added to the OP, u have the mod power to make it so

Under what? 

Under what Demon? I do not know them well enough to choose tbh.

Was hoping u have an idea

I haven't really seen you post here over any sorts of ideologies or philosophies that looked to have a heavy grip on your thinking and room for tangents. 

You've shown elements of your character, but you don't really seem fixated or distracted by it. Other than my having put down Orias as a goetian stand in for Astrology I've seen all the ones written down lead to either long posts on the subject and/or it has been sidecar to tons of seemingly unrelated if not semi-related topics (save for Chapo who just brings it up at random when things get weird). 

Well, I would put my philosophy, in a shorter variant like this:

• Life is always at war with you and you need to win
• Suffering is good for the soul, but only if you win the war I mentioned: so you do not give in to despair and even after everything, to still not be bitter: makes you appreciate the little things, harder to break, easier to achieve your goals, never to give up, and to be not afraid of action and confrontation(even embracing it and always go at full speed):
  
• I always strive to be better in anything or at least something. Because otherwise, you are stuck, even if you feel content, it is a delusion of life, to make you stuck. You have to fight it and always achieve, just to fuck life and show who is in control:
  
  (lyrics)
• There is no inherent meaning, you make your own meaning in life. There are no true morals, and no universal values, it's all subjective and that is fine. Make your morals, make your values and make your goals. Then do them:
  
• And I have a lot of goals, quite a few values, and maybe even some morals, but the main goal is to be entertained:
  

So that is in short, I believe. You can skip the videos, they are just nice flavour.

Some 2000 year old Slavic gods, maybe?

I've decided to no longer pursue the demon stuff because i can bosses over things if i start finding some sort of pattern or something idk 

Edit:Obsess 😭

Any case I could make would be uncertainty, as I find myself unworthy of anything. So much more to understand, to conquer. I am but a malfunctioning idiot looping in the same form of dialogue. Short-circuiting trapped in vague bateman-esque dialogue and random bullshit.

Chaotik said: 

Any case I could make would be uncertainty, as I find myself unworthy of anything. So much more to understand, to conquer. I am but a malfunctioning idiot looping in the same form of dialogue. Short-circuiting trapped in vague bateman-esque dialogue and random bullshit.

 That's the spirit. 

AliceInWonderland said: 

LeggaLeggaLegga said: 

I don't get this. You all believe in demons and stuff? I'm too dumb to understand.

I view demons or whatever name you wish to call them as patterns of being. 

Hence, theological and spiritual language is a means to delineate these patterns of being. 

True, a lot of the phenomenon precedes it's name or title, sort of like how symbols and colors affect people without knowledge of Graphic Design, Symbology, or Color Psychology, or how many discoveries were often ascribed towards magic when not yet understood. 

Calling on a name is basically a shortcut towards a bunch of larger concepts and stories, like medical terms (again). Learning someone's faith can give an idea of what framework they are either working within or aiming to subvert, as the residence it has on their mind has them become it to some degree. 

Turncoat said: 

I guess you do bring up Fascism a lot, but half the time it seems like irony these days compared to before. The whole "thinking of humanity like a collective organism" bit is pretty different but it's hard to tell how serious you are about it. 

That is only because I view the entirety of existence as more ironic now. I am still relatively serious about it, it is not my top priority in life. You could say I am a fascist enjoyer.

What you typed above this otherwise still seems vague enough to be more about character, there doesn't seem to be a central figure or core philosophical concept carrying this, but rather general statements about Entertainment and Competition.

Yeah, I can't say there is a central figure. There might be a philosophical concept, but I have not found it by name yet. Stoicism is close, but it's a bit too serious.

While that is fundamentally different from my views where I see life more as misunderstood because of our egos, you seem to see that ego as a ship captain against the tides of life. 

Fast and simple, lean and mean
Ultra-heavy strict machine
No surrender, no retreat
Let us give you what you need
Ultra-dirty, filthy clean
Makes you harder, gives you speed
Show no mercy, have no fear
The ultra-heavy beat is here

I guess it kind of falls a little into the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but if lets say you're like me where you first found this stuff in Bioshock before doing real research, it might run laps in your head around that iconography rather than as it's prime form: 

Some data on it's source though: 

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712 – 1778 CE, was a philosopher of the 18th century who mostly lived and was active in France. His political philosophy influenced western Europe, including aspects of the French Revolution and the development of modern political thought.

Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are cornerstones in contemporary political thought.

The Social Contract outlines what ought to be in place for a legitimate and publicly supported  political order. It is possibly the most influential work of political philosophy in the West. The treatise begins with the often heard opening lines, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.”

Rousseau followed the work of Hobbes and claimed that the state of nature was a human existence that was without law or morality, which humans needed to leave behind in order to truly thrive and survive. As society developed, the human race was required to have institutions of law in order to protect themselves and to ensure that all people in a society or community kept their word to one another. According to Rousseau, by joining together through the concept of a social contract and giving up some of their inborn freedoms, individual people could  both protect themselves and remain basically free to live as they chose. This is because obeying the general will of the people through the laws that are agreed upon by the community guarantees all individuals both physical safety and protection from tyranny because they are, as a whole, the authors of those accepted laws.

https://mlpp.pressbooks.pub/introphil/chapter/jean-jacques-rousseau/

Here's a longer one, if you feel like doing more reading into the name: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/

Rousseau repeatedly claims that a single idea is at the centre of his world view, namely, that human beings are good by nature but are rendered corrupt by society.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rousseau/

I don't have the time to go too deep into this, maybe I will get a book on it. But from what I did see, I think I do agree with Hobbes.
But Rousseau says that the state of nature of humans is to be nice and kind and it changed with science and civilization, for people to become more sinful and have vices. I do not agree with that. I think people used to be more savage and brutal in the past, when they raped, killed, and lived for 20 years. The natural state of man is savage and thanks to our scientific progress, we started to worry less and less about survival, giving us time to think about the world. As we became less ignorant and more thoughtful, we could overcome our savage nature.
Civilization without education, however, can give people access to tools that make it easier for them to act on some aspects of their savage nature. Like gluttony. But it is still overall better, way better.
I love industrialization and the less humanity relies on nature, the better.

Here is my political theory:
Less personal reasons why I prefer authoritarian governments over democratic ones are these:

• A leader has no consequences for his actions. When a leader is elected he gets to rule, gets paid, and does his thing. Then when the term is over unless he did something illegal, he just goes back to his life, it does not matter what he did, how bad or poorly it was during his rule. Sure, maybe he won't be elected again, but that is not a large incentive. In an authoritarian regime, the leader usually dies. Now you can see why he would care a lot more about his situation.
• A democratic term is usually short, so long-term goals are less important to the leader and he has to fix the mess of the previous leader. If you are a leader for life, you can really see the bigger picture and set up everything to be efficient for your rule.
• The power of the leader in a democracy is not in the nation he rules. It is his money. This makes leaders corrupt. Because once his term is over, and even when he is in rule, he can get more done with money, than the system. He has the incentive to pursue money over what has to be done.
  In an authoritarian regime, the power of the leader is in the nation. How well it is doing, social, religious, scientific, economic, cultural progress. The army. His life is tied to his nation. If the nation gets fucked, he will probably get fucked and he loses power directly, whenever the nation takes a blow. Now, this is an incentive to rule correctly for your own selfish benefit.

Ofc, a dictator can abuse his power, but then he usually dies. When a democratic leader abuses his power, at best he goes to prison for a little while(rarely), at average twitter hates him, at worst he gets a new yacht.