Do you think it's possible for someone to be a COMPLETELY

>>18327444
But over the years I've noticed a very pervasive pattern: they all want to make the "problem," the pain, go away. Like it never existed. Some people have straight up told me "oh I'm so sorry, I wish I could just take your pain away."

They don't fucking get it. I don't want my pain to go away. I want to overcome it. I want to grow and become a better, stronger person because of it. I want to be able to look at that problem in the future and scoff at how pathetic I must have been to think that it was even worth concerning myself over. I believe this so strongly that I honestly have a hard time even comprehending how this is not the natural response for everyone. Because of that, I've continuously spurned anyone who tried to help me, at first because I interpreted their methods as insincere and patronizing, and later just out of general disdain.

Over time, I've come to realize just how entrenched this pattern of conciliation is. If you'll forgive a bit of flowery metaphysics, it's as though it's woven into the fabric of the universe itself. Every aspect of human society, of animal society, of nature in general overwhelmingly favors the status quo. If it were up to me, life would just be an endless battle, or maybe more of a debate. Instead everybody's chasing after Heaven, or Nirvana, or even just winning the lotto and retiring to some beach resort.

(2/3)

>>18327447
But if there's any one thing that I can say that I have, beyond the shadow of a doubt, it's self-awareness. Perhaps it stems from a certain kind of narcissism. I'm fully aware of how much this makes me sound like some really edgy fedora tipper and/or cartoon supervillain. I also hardly think I'm unique in possessing these beliefs. Probably the only thing that makes me even slightly special is that I feel them so strongly and am so completely unwilling to even entertain the possibility of abandoning them that I'd consider death first. That's just it, though. For as much as I can see PRACTICALLY how this kind of thinking has basically ruined my life, I've yet to find how I've erred PHILOSOPHICALLY, other than the obvious "well you can't disagree with the universe, bro, you just...don't."

So, having heard my story, or at least a hugely abridged version of it, what do you think? Am I an irredeemable piece of shit? Am I not? Am I just a weirdo with way too much time on his hands? I'd like to know.

And apologies for the length/ego-stroking. I'd edit it to sound less douchey, but I'm not in the best state of mind right now and feel I need to post this before I just end up deleting it in frustration.

>>18327444
>>18327447
>>18327452
I don't think anyone can ever be completely irredeemable. That doesn't mean however that I know how to redeem you, or that anyone on this planet does. Truth is, as John Cleese says, that absolutely nobody knows what the fuck they are talking about, which is why your certainty that you've seen the one true way and refusal to accept other opinions is false, and stops your entry into society. How to convince you to abandon that though, is beyond me

I can help but I need your help... yeah whatever you don't know how but you can and I can explain how and why and how to understand it I just need your help, if you answer you will get the answer. If not not. if you do but you dont you might get it.

>>18327452
Independence is a good - and necessary - first step but interdependence is where the great things happen.

Perhaps you just haven't found your niche of people who challenge you in the right way.

But anyway as long as you aren't actively harming people there's no reason to kys. Go at your own pace.

>>18327444
You claim you are
>irredeemable piece if shit
And maybe when you were younger, it was true. But what i can see in your post is realization that you are different now, finally able to express yourself and even cope with harsh reality around you.

You seem ok to me. Like i dont even see problem in your thinking. You just like to dream about ideal world and you even realize that sich thing doesnt exist.

Dont be so hard on yourself, maybe apologize for being jerk to people around you and keep doing what you are doing?

Also consider posting this on >>>/lit/. They may even identify which philosophy you use in your thinking and reccomend you some cool book on subject.

Do you have some real problem? Cause if this is all, you are good to go.

>>18327540
>but interdependence is where the great things happen
I'm almost ashamed to admit how long it took me to realize this. I suppose it comes from having a (relatively) privileged upbringing. Still, knowing it doesn't really make it any easier to find people who don't actively make me want to stab myself in the face, to put it bluntly.

>Perhaps you just haven't found your niche of people
I wish this were true, and I suppose maybe it is, but I've been so miserable for so long and I'm so out of energy/patience at this point that I don't realistically see myself ever finding that niche. As "great" as the internet is for finding like-minded people, what you mostly end up with is echo chambers and circlejerks which is pretty much the opposite of what I'm looking for.

>as long as you aren't actively harming people there's no reason to kys
It's honestly more for my own peace than for anyone else's. The reason I frame the question as "Am I an irredeemable piece of shit" is more because I tend to go big picture and work backwards from there. My biggest concern is living a "moral" life, because according to my beliefs, the most morally upright person is also the strongest person, and in a tautological sense you could say that I value strength above everything else. A Nietzschean "will to power," as it were. If my way of thinking/being is inherently flawed, then I can conclude my algorithm there instead of wasting time/effort trying to do something only to find out I was doomed from the beginning. There are of course separate issues related to this approach, i.e. relying too heavily on "what ifs" and that sort of thing, but I suppose you could say that's just how I roll. And I guess there's also a pinch of melodrama mixed in there somewhere, but I've felt this way so strongly and for so long that it almost doesn't feel ridiculous to suggest that there's something seriously "wrong" with me, prone as such statements are to special snowflake syndrome.

>>18327482
What I'm taking away from this is that there's a chance someone on another planet might know how to solve my problems.

Jokes aside, I've wrestled with that statement/mentality(that there is no "one true way" and we're all just fumbling in the dark) for a long time and haven't arrived at a satisfactory answer. On the one hand, I despise dogma and rigid thinking, and my whole schtick is that I believe in the endless pursuit of knowledge/truth. However, I've too often seen/experienced people merely using it as a defense for poorly thought out arguments. Taken to its logical extreme, it implies that all discussion/debate is inherently meaningless, because there is no common ground/authority upon which to evaluate them. This is in fact what a lot of people do; they detest debate because they view it as unpleasant, so they try to shut it down. What they don't realize is that literally everything is an argument; in shutting down one debate, they're implicitly appealing to the status quo, which is in itself a position that had to, at one time or another, be formulated and codified. If anything, THEY'RE the closed-minded ones for not hearing out a dissenting opinion. Of course, it's been scientifically proven that 90% of peoples' random-ass dissenting opinions are probably bullshit. But there's still value in explaining and understanding WHY they're bullshit, and conversely, why the status quo is so successful.

(1/3)

>>18328154
I'd go so far as to suggest that this aversion to debate is the reason why the world has been getting increasingly fucked up politically, and well, in general. Nobody really understands why we do anything because were never forced to think about it, so we're consequently highly susceptible to vague emotional arguments and appeals to status quo. The latter is particularly dangerous because people have notoriously warped conceptions of the past. I get that that's always been the case to an extent, but(and here's where I make my big leap of faith) I believe it's different in the modern world where so few people are connected to "real" things, i.e. agriculture, artisanship, anything where you have to actually do shit instead of push around imaginary numbers and ideas all day -- in reality modern "conservatism" is just as made up and poorly defined as any sophomore liberal pipe dream. And what little does remain of the old world is being swiftly destroyed because virtually no one has enough understanding of both it and the new world to find out what aspects can and should be preserved and adapted, and how to do so.

After that load of bullshit, it might sound like I've thoroughly convinced myself that there IS some kind of gold standard of discourse and objectivity. And up until fairly recently, that was the case. But in my muddling I've come to see that even this is not necessarily the end of the world as we know it so much as perhaps the end of an era. Even with a pretty limited interest in history I'm aware that there have been some pretty famous examples of "knowledge extinction" throughout history; it's not unreasonable to think that we're simply living through another of those. Furthermore, if there's anything the internet and sites like 4chan have proven, it's that the limitless capacity for argumentation and obsessive fact-checking does not, in fact, lead to enlightenment.

(2/3)

>>18328158
In other words, my "gut instinct" is telling me to advocate for a solution that doesn't work to a problem that doesn't exist(or if it does exist, it's so intrinsic to the human condition as for it to be meaningless to try and solve). Per that last point, and if I continue to attempt to maintain my position, the only logical conclusion is that the solution is to change humanity itself, i.e. transhumanism, cybernetic aumentation, mind uploading, all that starry-eyed scifi bullshit. And at that point I have to begin to question whether something so far removed from my starting point can possibly be the answer, or whether I took a seriously wrong turn somewhere. I've run the scenario and turned the logic over again and again in my mind, but I inevitably end up at the same crossroads. I'm either completely insane or so far ahead of the curve as to be insane in any meaningful sense of the word.

And yet, even in the face of that, I can't simply "let it go" and decide not to think that way. My brain demands certainty, purpose. I can't just say "okay well that doesn't work, I'll stop thinking that" unless I have something else to replace it with. It goes on and on like this, endlessly, with reality constantly attacking me simply by existing in opposition to my painstakingly constructed logic. It feels like I'm being tortured. And in the midst of it all, it feels almost as though I hear a voice, tauntingly, "Well, this is what you wished for, right? A world of endless strife, endless debate? Why don't you just admit you want to be a blissfully ignorant sheep like everyone else?" And my answer is always the same: "Never."

THAT, to me, is what makes me an irredeemable shitbag.

(Again, apologies for all the self-indulgent prose and questionable leaps of logic. I'd welcome the chance to clarify/defend anything I've said[as well as the opportunity to be proven wrong] but I think this is a decent "gist" of how I feel)

(3/3)

>>18328154
>. Taken to its logical extreme,
There's no need to go to extremes, neither is it wrong to point out flaws in other people's arguments or worldviews. And sometimes, they are indeed poorly thought out. The point is that it's also true that other people have experience that you don't and no matter how much you think they are wrong, you shouldn't simply dismiss them

>>18328163
Somewhere between outr 2nd and 3rd post and between the first two paragraphs of the 3rd post it feels rushed and I'm not sure I really get your point. But the one thing I would recommend is to abandon exactly the rigidity that you speak out against in your first post. The world is infinitely complex and it's alright to not have the perfect solution here and now so long as we keep moving forward, making society better than it was yesterday. And that's exactly why a complete overhaul suggested by a single person with limited understanding outside their own upbringing will never be taken seriously. But for you personally, the real problem is still there. Specifically
>My brain demands certainty, purpose.
Unfortunately the universe offers neither. You'll have to deal with that somehow

>>18328313
>you shouldn't simply dismiss them
This is exactly my point, though? I'm saying that people should be prepared to defend their arguments instead of getting flustered and resorting to "well YOU'RE the closed minded one for challenging my beliefs." And while it's impossible to definitively evaluate the truth/validity of a statement, it is possible to roughly quantify the "amount" of information it contains. In general, I favor the statement that contains greater and more complex suppositions, because in the pursuit of their truth(or untruth) you're likely to gain more knowledge/insight.

>>18329359
That goes against Occam's razor though, which is what science relies on to build the world that you know. Also challenging current ideas is ok, but prepare to have yours challenged too, and rejected if people simply don't agree with your world view. Of course, there are people who refuse to engage in a debate too, which is understandable as people also have lives to live and can't spend all their time on politics, sojust let them be and engage with the people who want to engage in discussion

>>18329609
Occam's razor is a heuristic, a.k.a. "rule of thumb" -- it's a good first line screening tool, but more often than not novel insights lie precisely in ground that either hasn't been covered, or fills a space between areas previously thought unconnected.

More importantly, it's a tool for evaluating potential answers to questions, not generating the questions themselves. That's my problem. People don't ask enough questions. They're so...overwhelmed, I suppose, by just the simple rigors of day-to-day life that they can't "afford" to sit down and think, even if the very cause of their seemingly endless problems is lack of reflection to begin with. It's a horrible vicious cycle that ranges from annoying, to outright painful, to watch. And of course, it goes beyond just watching as well. I'm still a regular joe just like everyone else, beholden to the same social structures.

>>18330227
>More importantly, it's a tool for evaluating potential answers to questions
>>18329359
>In general, I favor the statement that contains greater and more complex suppositions,
>statement
Can you give a specific example? Because I have to say, going out of your way to prioritise a statement just because it has more suppositions is a highway to bullshit. And while breakthroughs require thinking outside the box, the difference between a breakthrough and just random meaningless blabber is measured by its applicability inside the box

>>18327444
We can't help you anon. Being better is something only you can do. But I will say you have potential. You recognize your flaws and want to solve them that's already a good sign of a decent person.