hey so i'm high evading some work i have to do i dont want

>>8319834
Blacks are inferior to whites
Women are inferior to men
Conservatives are superior to liberals

Prove me wrong

You're gay and stupid

>>8319839

The last student to enter the main hall of the academia was not even late; everyone was hurrying to be present at their Dean of Philosophy's Masterclass. The sombre professor walks about his pivotal spot in the Amphitheatre, shadowless, followed by a white toga. The doors shut are shut, the class is seated, and the professor without a word takes a hat from the audience, plunges a hand, dives an post, pulls and reads alound:

"Blacks are inferior to whites
Women are inferior to men
Conservatives are superior to liberals

Prove me wrong"

The professor looks about, the crowd is mute. He finds potential in the eyes that meet his.

"Superficial as it might me, the fragment suits me. It is, I believe you call it, a "meme-thought", isn't it? I would expect this to be a meadian belief of your generation. And by "mean" in that statement I signify "constant repettition of thought". Because, if this thought is shared by most of you, you've must have had it a thousand times, merely to form the concept. And so it is persistent, and it affirms a conviction, a conclusion. Thus I mean it is believed.

Now I would very much like to dismantle this statement linguistically, as a misconstruction, expose it as a truth of a particular language-game that is not consistent, or complete. The only language that is consistent, and complete, and thus which can express truths of internal cohesion, is the language of Aztlantis, a non-aristotelean teleological hypnocommunication techinique, discovered as of late by my colleague here, Dr. James Thatch. Since I am not expressing myself in said language, I must admit that the very word I wield now against you, the logical foundation of this very expression, is rooted in nothing, and arises by a non consistent name-net of opposite shadows through codependency, "a if b and b if a" that admits no essence. The non-theoretical grasp, but the experience of the effects that this belief, is the objective of this course. Be warned, Philosophy in the 22 century is something quite different from what you have learnt in your history classes. Philosophy is a practice, a mode of questioning; the experience is not. To some people it happens, to others it does not. Those of you who might heal the split and become non-dual through the destruction of the firm belief in the possibility to state belief consistenly with any language in which you state it may move on to Dr. ,Thatch's class, called "hagiophonetics", and maybe one day become an Old-One, and travel to the center of the world to keep it's balance, dancing in silence. But I disgress. The Metaphysics of the Church of the Mind is not this class either. This classed is called philosophy, and my aim is this: to teach you to pass from a piece of disguised nonsense to something that is patent nonsense. This is the philosopher's creed. And since we have not yet seen or studied Master Old-One Gödel's proof of non-completeness,

/

>>8320052
part. 2

...I thought it interesting what we could do without it, merely to see the interior inconsistency of the “median thoughts” or “collective meme beliefs” that you already hold. Having the anonymous post in mind, recall the last statement, “Prove me wrong”. Now what we have here is, in the first part, a series of three consequent statements, and the phrase “Prove me wrong”. But who is this “me” that ought to be proven? The sole concept to from which “proof” can be dialectically defined, is if we already hold the concept of “truth”, or self-identity. Does “Prove me wrong” mean “proof truth wrong”? No, certainly not; but this assumption, or ghost-axiom of the language in which the phrase is expressed, is a requirement for the statement to be valid; hence, it’s inconsistency. Now I shall prove it, do not distract your mind, be quick on the mark. What is expressed in the first part of the post, are statements, not opinions. See that it does not state “I believe that X is Y”, but expresses “X is Y”, in an atomic fact where there is no “me”. For, if there was a “me” in an atomic fact, it would be an opinion. See? So there can be no signifier for the word “me” in “Prove me wrong” – unless it where talking of truth, or, in other words, the who of facts. If we take truth to be “the one expressing atomic facts” without there being a “me”, then the phrase “Prove me wrong” would evidently take “me” as “truth. But the statement “Prove truth wrong” is inconsistent. See? If one proves that truth is not, it is not a truth, it cannot be a truth, for truths are proved to be not; it must be a falsity. Here be our most beautiful paradox. See? It’s recursive. If there really is no truth, I cannot express it; everything I say is a paradox. The aim of this class of philosophy is to teach you that there is no truth, and dismantle your biological old-brain of stiff beliefs, recurrent meme-thoughts that can be rooted out from you mind so you can serve greatly your brothers and sisters in this our New Age. However, as we will see in this course, everything will be a paraphrasis of Epimenedes’ old paradox of the liar. I am unable to state in this language that the can be no truth without recursivity, tautology and reducto ad absurdum. There are no truths, but this very statement cannot be a truth for it to be expressed in a cohesive system, and etcetera, ad aeterum… Hence why I said that the objective of this class will be an experience, not a teaching, or a truth. Do not expect a truth but something that you have never seen. Which, in its own way, it’s a paradox too. Heraclitus’ plead to wait for the unexpected. Impossible. And so we return, from the depths of meaning, back to our superficial post.

>>8320059

part. 3

...It has started a language-game of itself, but the internal laws of the language-game it began are not consistent, the game falls… As all game falls. The equivalence of “me” and “truth” is recursive, and no other who is present. We will see, along future classes, how “belief” really acts as “anonymous speech”… One never thinks in statements, “I believe X is Y”. One speaks in “anonymous truths”, or “X is Y”. We ourselves are never in our thoughts, because our thoughts are not our own… But this is impossible to believe, because if our believes are not our own, how can we cease to believe...? Hence the experience. I can see here some of you ready for it, perhaps. Ready to succeed me as Dean of Philosophy. But I warn you, the result of perfect teaching will lead to the absolute dissolution of any concept you have of self, and of course you will fight it. And it will fight you. It is known that my class produces suicides. I wanr you, if you are not ready to think about death every day, then philosophy is not for you. This will destroy you. I expect half of this room to be emptied by tomorrow’s class; in over fifty years of teaching, I have never had more than five people graduate per class. Hereby I will tell you, you are in the void, falling, and you can’t hold fast of ANYTHING. I will give you Occkam’s razor as a fighting weapon against the word; but in the end there is only one head to cut.

Class dismissed.”

>>8319839

o.k. so I just owned you

still drunk tho

>>8319945

fuck that guy

you're stay and cupid

anyone else here to storycrunch?

>>8320052
How drab of a take-down. I admire it nonetheless, but why should I give a flying fuck any of your truth-non-truths when you, just like anon, are acting out equally valid-through-their-vapidity dogma?

come on guys i'm still here, still drunk

what a silly story, perhaps you didn't like it

no one to storycrunch then?

>>8320132

i think the essence of the story was that you should never believe anything

i like it OP

>>8319834
eat shit homo

>>8319834


why does the story adn your post seem differnet?