Destruction as a Means to Truth

[John DoeParticipant 743]

I have noticed throughout both my personal and academic years of studying philosophy that many philosophical treaties and discourses are dependent on an inherent logical form. This is obvious…no deep thought.

Now if the treatise or discourse follows a form where it is fundamentally coherent, (regardless of what is being argued) it is deemed as fundamentally “truthful” as an order of some shape or form can be found within it.

However, I have noticed within the course of my “debates” and discussions throughout the years, someone may have a logically formed argument yet it is all too easy to derail by coming at it from another angle other than the premise. In this I discovered that all “coherent” arguments are fundamentally “incoherent” as they are dependent on premises which are always assumed to be axiomatic. This is inherently illogical, as even if (and this is a big if) the premises were “self-evident” it requires at minimum a belief in the senses (and from here one can argue “what is belief” “what are the senses” etc. and one can either start a new argument, completely derail it, or even “win it” [as if this means anything])

From this point of view one can be inclined towards nihilism or nihilistic tendencies which fundamentally make no sense yet seem to argue that this makes sense as if 1=0. So where does that leave a philosopher? In the dark? Is that what we really know? Even despair is fundamentally pointless…along with apathy on its own terms, as if “reasoning” nihilism or apathy is rational.

So what now? Destruction (intellectually speaking)? It seems the most axiomatic course as what we know is really nothing, so what good has knowledge been except to expose us as “children”. And what do children do? They rip things apart until what cannot be ripped apart is exposed.

So what of the future of philosophy as many on this forum have questioned (an rightfully so)? Destruction…everything must be submitted to the “fire” until only those things which still stand can be acknowledged as self-evident.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Is that what you mean dude?

No, not at all. This post was on philosophyforums.com and I wanted to see how it would translate here. I brought up the problems of “intellectualism” and now I am having a conversation with some stranger about fleshlights.

Now, come this think of it “let the world burn” might actually be a good thing. Thanks. I hope this “translation” works as I don’t speak nascar. The various tones of “UGHHH” “BURRP” along with the various budlight in the hand signals don’t translate well on forums.

[Anonymous 42]

What are you saying John, after everything gets hashed out to a “consensus” any abstract thought gets disqualified by the consensus? I hope not, that would be like any of the ism’s, feminism, Communism, fascism, or plane ole bums rush thugs rule…

[Anonymous 54]

John Doe wrote:

Went Camping wrote:

Is that what you mean dude?

I don’t speak nascar.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

Anonymous wrote:

I hope not, that would be like any of the ism’s, feminism, Communism, fascism, or plane ole bums rush thugs rule…

I am saying those ideologies should be “burned down” too in the large scheme of things. Inherently this language sounds dramatic but because it is metaphorical, and metaphors (I believe) cover a various range of non-contradictory meanings that branch through multiple perspectives without contradicting, it shouldn’t be taken strictly as such.

The obvious point, and it is not deep at all, is that the world as we know it is confusing….chaotic….appears to be rational but lacking any real reason….is it good/bad? Who am I too judge….but like gold that is intertwined with a stone must be put to a fire so as to extract the gold, so must all ideologies….the self-forged deities of time, be burnt to nothing for the sake…or better yet a vision….of truth.

[DorkShitParticipant 4353]

Men of ability must be destroyed in order to have equality. That reality lives. It is the only way that things can be fair for everyone.

Everything in a society boils down to two types of people. You are either a producer or a consumer.

Consumers consume and a percentage feels guilty and then resentful. It is amazing what people can justify. They have to feel (self worth) equal to the producer. Etc, etc. What is terrible is the consumer that believes they are the victim of the producer. Etc etc etc.

Peace brothers

[Anonymous 42]

Ideologies can be time sensitive, therefore a Renaissance of a particular ideology can reemerge, take feminism, the gold is scattered throughout a bale of hay (feminism) instead of stone, A TRADCON would say send the bale of hay through the stamp mill, MGTOW comes along says stamp mill? WTF try something new, something that makes sense, so the MGTOW sets the bale of hay on fire in place without ever going through the antiquated and useless stamp mill, he blows away the ashes, sweeps up his gold and walks away…

[Anonymous 3]

Logic is not a natural law, but a human construction. It might be valid under its own mental field of existence, but hardly would be worth much outside of it.
Its just like anything we can think of, and eventually build. Might be usefull, fun or beautiful. But is not alive.
Any machine, any mental creation is time based. It was build,it will be destroyed.
Life is permanent. If we try to destroy it, simply returns. It is moldable, flexible and infinitely complex.

All the logic of the world pales in the presence of a flower.

I an for the destruction… of conceptual approaches. Unfortunately something very difficult to achieve.

[TuneoutParticipant]

John Doe wrote:

So what now? Destruction (intellectually speaking)? It seems the most axiomatic course as what we know is really nothing, so what good has knowledge been except to expose us as “children”. And what do children do? They rip things apart until what cannot be ripped apart is exposed.

By ripping things apart children learn.

DorkShit wrote:

Consumers consume and a percentage feels guilty and then resentful. It is amazing what people can justify. They have to feel (self worth) equal to the producer. Etc, etc. What is terrible is the consumer that believes they are the victim of the producer. Etc etc etc.

This would explain feminists hatred for the ‘Patriarchy’
and SJW’s contempt for the so called 1%.

Lifes a bitch,but you don't have to marry one!

[HitmanParticipant]

DorkShit wrote:

Men of ability must be destroyed in order to have equality.

communist agenda…
underway now.
.
speak freely while you can, John Doe..
that’s the name of unknown men at the MORGUE.

[John DoeParticipant 743]

DorkShit wrote:

Everything in a society boils down to two types of people. You are either a producer or a consumer.

Under the idea of industrialism/post-industrialism, yes this is true. But I am not arguing for industrialism/post-industrialism. I would argue against it but that would be pointless considering the environment…aka I would be singing to the choir for one half and have die hard people who support it on the other while 70% wouldn’t give a s~~~ about either side.

Anonymous wrote:

Logic is not a natural law, but a human construction.

One could argue humans are natural therefore what they make is natural.

Anonymous wrote:

I an for the destruction… of conceptual approaches. Unfortunately something very difficult to achieve.

Not if one is big enough of an asshole…..an “Uber-asshole”.

Hitman wrote:

that’s the name of unknown men at the MORGUE.

Last time I checked, communists died too. Life goes by in a blink no matter how long to live. I often wonder, and this is just a point of curiosity more than anything, if preserving my life is just stupid…I am going to die anyhow…just like everyone else. Don’t get me wrong I am not arguing for suicide/etc, but it is a point to ponder.

Tuneout wrote:

By ripping things apart children learn.

And what one of us isn’t a child deep down? If anything this is a “fully” human approach to dealing with problems….maybe?

trash the society to rebuild a new one.

There ideologies that keep talking about building “a new society” are (and were throughout history) a dime a dozen……just like those little wooden idols our ancient fore-fathers use to build…..the only difference is that instead of wood we use the image of man.

[Anonymous 3]

John Doe, These latest posts of yours are very entertaining.

John Doe wrote:

One could argue humans are natural therefore what they make is natural.

This is a great example of sophism, and not in the ancient Greek good meaning.
And is a great proof that logic and intellectual tools can be used to support just about anything.

An example: God is the master of everything, so everything we do must be God’s will. If we do anything bad, we didn’t do it. It was God’s will.

There are actually religions using this line of argument…

But without human mental constructions let us see what is real…

A man thirsty in the desert can imagine and reason as he wants. No amount of thinking will replace a glass of water.

That is the proof of pudding, what is physically here with palpable direct influence in the world.

Human logic is not natural because it has no palpable reality. What people do is real. What makes them do it is not. Either logic and reason govern us, or insanity: the result is visible action, but our motivator is always unknown to others.

What constituted someone’s reason is someone else’s insanity.

John Doe wrote:

ZenState wrote:
I an for the destruction… of conceptual approaches. Unfortunately something very difficult to achieve.
Not if one is big enough of an asshole…..an “Uber-asshole”.

That one I did not understand. Care to explain?

[Author]

Posts