Sociopath Community

Turncoat said: 

Having no legs at all could make you stronger because <insert many reasons>, but nobody cuts their legs off because, objectively, it can cause a lot of problems in your life. 

With how many people feign illnesses and problems like badges of honor, I don't even know anymore. It might just be a matter of time. 

Otherwise people tend to on a deep level fear self mutilation. Even with good reasons to do it they will struggle to cut off their legs even when their life depends on it, which makes it difficult to not justify excuses for keeping them. 

Of course I want my legs, I value my legs, but there's got to be some weirdo out there that doesn't want legs who might actually become stronger as a person through losing them, or some guy who through losing them finds a strength that was otherwise once dormant, like discovering a talent for Wheelchair Rugby that sets him for life. 

I understand your viewpoint, Turncoat, and I am sure you understand mine.

I do get yours, it's a pretty straight forward and typical argument: "You should aim to grow, function, and succeed". I'm not sure if you'd expand that to benefiting larger groups of people or if you're focusing more on a sense of personal progress, but you argue for a sense of growth that can be argued to "exist" beyond a sense of the self (objective), so in ways that could be compared to others from it's basis in "reality". 

I do not think Daniel Birdick's point is that his world view is superior to yours. I think he makes a clear and valid point when he more or less says that cutting your legs off to make yourself happy has the same practical issue as buying a lottery ticket to become a millionaire. I agree with him. Claiming that everything is relative is not very practical. It just gives a good excuse not to do anything to address real life problems..

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SensitiveSoul said: 

Turncoat said: 

Having no legs at all could make you stronger because <insert many reasons>, but nobody cuts their legs off because, objectively, it can cause a lot of problems in your life. 

With how many people feign illnesses and problems like badges of honor, I don't even know anymore. It might just be a matter of time. 

Otherwise people tend to on a deep level fear self mutilation. Even with good reasons to do it they will struggle to cut off their legs even when their life depends on it, which makes it difficult to not justify excuses for keeping them. 

Of course I want my legs, I value my legs, but there's got to be some weirdo out there that doesn't want legs who might actually become stronger as a person through losing them, or some guy who through losing them finds a strength that was otherwise once dormant, like discovering a talent for Wheelchair Rugby that sets him for life. 

I understand your viewpoint, Turncoat, and I am sure you understand mine.

I do get yours, it's a pretty straight forward and typical argument: "You should aim to grow, function, and succeed". I'm not sure if you'd expand that to benefiting larger groups of people or if you're focusing more on a sense of personal progress, but you argue for a sense of growth that can be argued to "exist" beyond a sense of the self (objective), so in ways that could be compared to others from it's basis in "reality". 

I do not think Daniel Birdick's point is that his world view is superior to yours.

Nah I know, his world view is instead subject to the basis of how himself and others to a relative degree would see him. He sees the value in his path universally and would recommend a path of growth to others instead of keeping that perspective to himself. 

Claiming that everything is relative is not very practical. It just gives a good excuse not to do anything to address real life problems..

I've been arguing that life's problems stem from how unsustainable one's life model is. If it by design can and will fall apart, it's not perpetual. 

The story I gave about "Champ" was meant to be an example: Many would find him to be some sort of shameful jester of an alcoholic, while I'd argue he's the one with the edge over many who'd judge him as such. He is in many ways "ignoring real life problems", but in many others he's also addressing them to the point of a seeming equilibrium. 

He says it's good to aim for personal growth for the sake of his own personal comforts, a common model, but there's many paths towards personal comfort. If you're able to live day to day and feel alright with yourself without a path of achievement as the goal, where's the issue? 

Daniel Birdick said: 

Why do I not like solipsism?

You can claim that nothing besides you exists, which is fine... Until you wake up the next morning.

Averaged out, it's closer to seeing that the world you see around you can only be understood as an extension of yourself. Life is understood primarily through projection and it's room for adaptation when there's unexplainable/unjustifiable clashes with what's known or expected, so it's not too wild to think the world you see around yourself is just an extension of yourself. It's closer to being the world as you know it falling into that, but as we've seen with Luna's DMT narrative... it's a sliding scale. 

If they think they are all that's real, that's delusional if you ask me. If they think that all they could ever understand is based on their own capacity for perception, then they're closer to the answer as I understand it currently. 

Suddenly everything you do will depend on you believing that the world around you continues to exist, with or without your awareness of it. Your boss is still there, your rent/mortgage is still due and your family drama continues. It is funny how things just keep persisting as if they existed when you aren't aware of them.

I had an old roomie joke around about how the world basically stops processing the parts you can't see beyond a contextual partition from the back of his own mind. It continues, but not with the same level of depth as when you're right in front of it. 

The dream world can fill in context for things that are on your mind and an unexpected tangent, so why not the real one too? 

And when your older brother has you in a chokehold over some inane drama, you can not just make it go away by claiming you live in la la land or the matrix. Bummer. Solipsists are left in an untenable position practically speaking, and their actions prove this.

If the world is just their own perceptions, purely like that of a dream, it could be argued that the chokehold was "self inflicted" from their own psyche. 

Solipsism claims they are the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean that they think they have perfect control over it and their own minds. 

In the end, perception of yourself and what's around us is primarily all we've got, which is why people can so easily spin into other perspectives instead of one singular one with ease. 

And why stick to solipsism? You can also claim that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists and invent a reason why it morally justifies you to murder brats with lawn mowers. That will be way cooler. The problem here is that the theory can not be proven or disproven, so it is irrelevant.

Again, sliding scale. Anything can be taken too far to the point of absurdity, but when taken as guidelines it's not entirely baseless. 

ChallengeSeeker

What a fantastic analogy, Mr. "SensitiveSoul". That is precisely my point. The real world does not care about hypotheticals but of evidence.

Turncoat, I am glad that we agree solipsism is delusional though it can be self-consistent (as you rightly point out)! However, I was merely illustrating how absurd the idea is. At the end of the day, you still need to behave as if everything and everyone existed. It lends itself to no practical use, hence why I say philosophisizing about solipsism is a waste. A mental exercise for the smart but bored bunch.

But my family's out finally and I happen to be part of the bored bunch now. So let me continue with my usual long-winded pseudo-intellectual ramble in a bit more detail: Solipsists need an insurmountable amount of rules for a detached "fake non-existent world", that behaves exactly as if it existed, without it actually existing. That makes no sense.

If you believe in the scientific method, which you do, then you also believe that the more complicated the theory, the less likely it is correct -- barring good evidence. In this sense, solipsism is "almost certainly incorrect", even if it can be a consistent theory. That is, unless there is good evidence, which there is not.

As for your reply to my earlier post: my point is not that you should adopt my world view, that you should choose the path of growth or that you can not be happy without personal growth. However, I do not have time to re-iterate my point further. SensitiveSoul already did that. So let's call the whole thing off!

Turncoat said: 

Why do you choose to go on? 

I'm not looking for advice, I'm looking for variations and narratives. 

Dima79 said: 

Turncoat said: 

Why do you choose to go on? 

I'm not looking for advice, I'm looking for variations and narratives. 

 

 fucking brainbraeking system///WHY???????????????????????

Why do you choose to go on? I'm not looking for advice, I'm looking for variations and narratives said:

 

````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````