>reading a book with some good life lessons too late in life

File: HERE IT COMES.jpg (131KB, 1280x991px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 1280x991px

>getting closer to the end of a book with conflicts that match your own

Life as a whole doesn't make sense to me. All aspects apear to be truthfull, even when they're contradicting one another. I see this patern in everything related to human behavior.
The more I try to understand, the more I'm sent to the dark.
I tanke the stance of not caring that much and just doing my thing as a confident person with self interrest and it seems to be working just fine, but this still messes me up a bit
I seem to be trying to reach a never ending peace, help me with this

>>8492752
Try reading Lacanian theory

>>8492752
You might be interested in Gnosticism, where the world is inherently flawed, inconstant, and illusory.

File: FB_IMG_1468957121367.jpg (73KB, 702x992px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 702x992px

>>8492752
Well that is because you cant reduce life to a few concepts or "wisdoms"

The world is hypercomplex(in my view) so any circunstance can have a certai wisdom attached to it
My point is that the world is tol chaotic and changing and reducing it to simple patterns is impossible.
So we are left in the dark basically and then you have those who pretend they are not in the dark through self dellusions (we all have them)
Yes..

>>8492841
Expand.

>>8493225
Attempt to pursue an interest in the psychoanalytic theory of Jacques Lacan concerning humankind.

>>8492841
>>8493161
And get trapped in the maze of philosophy and religion? aka bullshit? No. The best would be start at the fundamental and observe actual living things. Elephants and spiders and shit. What the fuck are they doing? why do they do the things they do? You observe long enough and patterns will emerge. That pattern is time. Everything tries to outrun the decay of time. All the poets complain about youth and age. All the great epics ends with a statement about time. Every living organisms fight against time. And you know what the solution is? Reproduction. That's the only way. Individuals will die but the population live. The greatest bullshit that pseudointellectuals fall for is thinking words contain truth. No, it is the world that is truth. Words, language, can only point the way.

Time to have a kid and teach them those lessons

>>8493261
You're talking about becoming a scientist, of finding order and meaning in the material. It isn't enough. People will continue to be unhappy as knowledge and technology increases.

>>8493261
>believing yourself to have escaped the 'maze' of philosophy whilst simultaneously promoting a philosophical standpoint very much within the context of the western philosophical tradition.

>late

if it didnt teach you that theres no time in life to start learning and change in a radical way, then it was a cheap lesson not worth your time, it was pure ideology.

File: 1741349.jpg (422KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

422KB, 1000x1000px

>>8493261
>And get trapped in the maze of philosophy and religion?
You're already trapped.
If you weren't, you would be happy.
Personally, I think you're a shitter, anyone who brackets religion as mere "bullshit" is an illiterate shitter.
I do think you're on the right track, that you care about knowledge is proof of this.

>it is the world that is truth
Words belong to the world, they are made up of matter.
Now, you may not believe that unconscious matter can exhibit binding power regarding spiritual matters, and I wouldn't blame you, but since being is convertible with good and by extension truth and beauty, and since all contingent things proceed from a subsisting principle of existence which is ultimately love, then words, in as much as they are an accretion of things over time (billions of years presumably) which have had regard to love, proceed also from love and by love contribute to the instrumentality and consummation of all things, and do contain truth in this strict, indirect sense.
The paradox is that your perception is not the same as your being, you have an interior as opposed to the exterior and they are different somehow.
The same goes for being; if the logical positivists were right, then being wouldn't differ from non-being, but what logical positivists don't take account of is that, without realizing it, they have invented their own little world where this is in fact the case because everything is thought of as abject from experience, ignoring the fact that in the real world being -is- different from non-being because our perceptions and thoughts are one with our experience and so divorcing them is nothing but a convenient way to trick yourself into believing that your own made-up empirically verifiable model is the extent of reality.

>>8496331
thanks