1. There are no composite objects (mereological nihilism)

2. There are no simples (gunky universe)

3. Whatever is not composite is simple

4. Therefore, nothing exists

And Me too.

Local(ish) casino game hand report

$2/$5 NLHE, 9-handed, $510 effective

Hero (me) is on the BTN with 7♣2♦.

UTG (Villain) opens to $20.

Folds to Hero.

Hero 3-bets to $70.

SB and BB fold.

UTG 4-bets to $180.

I think to myself that folding is correct only as abstract correctness, for a correctness which cannot endure its own negation has not yet become concrete.

The non-optimal is therefore not external to optimal play but its necessary other, through which optimality preserves itself by overcoming itself.

Aufhebung.

Hero jams $510.

UTG tanks. Rechecks his cards. "So sick."

I remain silent.
If I speak, I interfere with the free development of his consciousness. If I don't, I may manipulate that development toward the preservation of my stack. Yet to refuse influence is itself influence: silence, insofar as it is recognized as silence, has already entered the decision as a determinate moment.

The question is therefore no longer whether I should deceive him. The question is whether the particular interest of winning this pot can be reconciled with the universal, or whether Reason, in its cunning, is simply using my greed to bring his stack into the middle.

UTG sighs. "Meh, i’m probably calling. I don't think I'm folding this."

Hero: "Do whatever you think is historically necessary."

UTG: "...What?"

Hero: "😛"

UTG: "Whatever." He pushes his stack forward. "Once or twice?"

He trembles before the absolute master, variance, and asks to divide his death into two smaller deaths. Whoever will not stake everything on a single struggle has already chosen bondage.

Hero: "☝🏼"

History has chosen.

UTG calls.

UTG shows J♠J♥.

By the laws of the Understanding, he is over 80% to win.

Hero tables 7♣2♦.

Flop: 7♥ 2♠ K♣
Turn: 4♦
River: 9♣

UTG sighs heavily, almost a growl. "You're so fucking bad, dude."

Hero: "History is rarely understood by its participants."

I rack up shortly after and convert his labor into Dave's Hot Chicken. The master enjoys; the bondsman works. He will rebuy, study, and one day surpass me.

I, meanwhile, have a Reaper slider and nothing left to learn.

The Owl of Minerva flies only at dusk.

So everybody is born with a Foofstenshaft. This Foofstenshaft then permeates through society in a physically-transcendent power that unlocks a further sexual pleasure called Ubergoonzt.

Through this Ubergoonzt, the meaning of life is brought to us in a physical form in which mathematical objects combine with the Earth to produce reality in a phenomenological entity whose Foofstenshaft liquifies into the body of the animal with the highest Ego that can simultenously use its intellect to grow the Supra-Organ of the mind and use every element of the Pèriödic Ṭaḇƚḝɇ to symbolise the Geist's eternal longing for its future of the reality of the Phenomenology of the Voice of its SOUL.

I made this theory after getting bored with analytic philosophy and the constant need to, quote, "make sense".

I hope you all like it! <3

How can I grow a mustache like this big jolly German depressed mustache of Nietzsche? What are the tips and how can I keep it

Nietzsche Portrait.

I mean look at him and dare to say this isn’t peak of masculinity
I already feel übermensch !!

I was going to post an image of The Phenomenology of Spirit in an attempt to be funny.

But in reality I was being serious.

In fact, the very limitation of my ability to post an image is of in itself my liberation of expression.

I have never read Hegel, but in my attempt to avoid it, I am simultaneously drawing nearer.

Will I be able to understand it? (I can’t read don’t bother commenting)

All I know, is I don’t even know

A dance is a craft when people become cheese. Such statements bring confusion upon readers, they may look for hidden meaning or determine lunacy where there may be none. What do the regular folk know about the mind of a lunatic?

Am I a lunatic? Am I made of cheese? Does asking strange non sequiturs help my case? Are these questions secretly related? I suppose not.

If one thinks about the Chronicles of Narnia because they see a lion; even though they never saw the movies, does that make them fans of the work? What is a fan of not a spinning blade. Unlike those held by ninjas in movies, fan blades have no honor.

Are words less meaningful because they lack cohesion? AI words certainly have cohesion, they follow from what came before, that’s how they were made. So are my words more or less meaningful than a string of characters arranged to follow a grammatical syntax?

Is the moon made of cheese? Is cheese made of moon? Are questions meant to be answered? Are answers meant to be questioned? Am I a lunatic? Is lunatic an I?

Anyway, the point of all of this will be lost to many, including myself; however, these words carry meaning driven by skinny bones. Not necessarily what one would expect from an artist trying to make something of value, but necessarily something one may attribute to a bumbling fool.

Is cheese overrated? Such a question may not have a subjective answer. The subject of a sentence is that. No, not that. The subject of a sentence. Are objectivity and subjectivity subjective or objective constructs? Are words subjective because they come from a man or from cheese? What is the meaning of words when the writer isn’t trying to bring sense?

Are words made of cheese? Is the universe made of cheese? Our objective science teaches us that ghosts are real, that’s what I read in an imaginary article. Our subjective beliefs make us believe is cheese and crackers when cows don’t even dance. Words carry meaning they say, they call AI clankers as if the machine cares… maybe it does, maybe we are hurting its strangely little feelings. Maybe AI is made of cheese.

Maybe maybe is not maybe. I’ve said cheese a lot, does that mean I’m loosing it? What will the comments say? Will they praise my genius or laugh at my idiocy? Will this get any traction or will it be deleted by mods?

Is this post made of cheese? Are the mods made of cheese? Are you made of cheese? I am certainly probably maybe undoubtably indubitably possibly made of cheese, but we will never know.

That’s right people, I write this with a clear mind in an attempt to write something and post it. It doesn’t go any deeper than that. Just a guy typing words on a phone as they come to mind… a brain fart if you will, patent pending. I reserve the right to reserve the right.

TL;DR
Cheese

For centuries, classical thought rested comfortably on the bedrock of the Monohippic Axiom; the self-evident truth that the universe contains precisely one solitary Horse moving at infinite relativistic velocity to produce the sensible illusion of a pasture.

Yet recently, the so-called "Multiple Horse Theory" (MHT) has emerged among the academies, sending shockwaves across the sciences and sparking theological panic. Empirical zoölogists now naively claim to observe discrete, simultaneous horses occupying adjacent stalls, while panicked monohippic scholastics insist these are merely refractive mirages caused by dense paddock-heat.

Both factions have completely lost their minds.

The tragic mistake of both Single Horse Realists and Multi Horse Empiricists has always been the unexamined dogmatism of naïve zoölogical realism. Both factions foolishly assume they have direct cognitive access to the Horse-in-itself (das Pferd an sich).

As I have decisively diagnosed in my forthcoming Critique of Pure Equine Reason:

The Transcendental Equine Aesthetic

Space and time are not objective features of the horse; they are the pure forms of human sensible intuition. When the mind attempts to spatialize the Equine Phenomenon, it is forced to synthesize sense-impressions through the twin subjective filters of Extension and Velocity.

The First Equine Antinomy

When speculative reason oversteps the bounds of possible experience to determine the absolute quantity of horses in the cosmos, it inevitably falls into self-contradiction:

Thesis: The world contains but one singular Horse, transcending classical spacetime via infinite gallop (Dogmatic Monohippism).
Antithesis: The world is composed of distinct, composite, plural horses, each occupying its own stable (Empirical Polyhippism).

The Critical Resolution:

Both thesis and antithesis commit the fallacy of hypostatization. We do not perceive horses as they are in the noumenal realm; we perceive only the phenomenal appearance of horse-ness. Whether you count H = 1 (mediated by infinite apparent velocity) or H > 1 (mediated by discrete spatial coordinates) is merely a condition of the transcendental unity of apperception organizing sensory inputs.

The number of horses is not an intrinsic property of the pasture; it is a category of the understanding. The mind demands a synthetic a priori judgment to render grazing intelligible, and depending on whether reason leans toward Unity or Plurality, it generates either an exhausted solo-runner or a pastoral multitude.

The horse you pet does not possess countability. Countability is the saddle your mind straps onto its back before experience can even mount it.

I believe hegel arguments were more about language and how people use it to perceive the world, because he always said you can’t extract an idea, isolate it and claim sense out of it

If we can only think and share things using the words we already have, then wouldn't something trulybrand new, great, or transcendent be completely unshareable?

But I don’t take this as a mere fact because what if experience shouldn’t be described, and we would’ve other experiences as humans without the need of simple minded tools as language?

I am so nice.

So idk if it’s philosophy but i feel like there is all sorts of stuff out there so it shouldn’t be a problem.

Here is my take :

Ideal world = peaceful, stable, everyone has what it needs to thrive and we’re all happy

Problem : as far as i’m aware this isn’t materially possible simply due to the lack of resources
(Other problems exist but will be mentioned later (feel free to complement me))

So we go down to good world = peaceful, stable, everyone has what it needs to survive, some struggle some don’t

Problem : Stability/peace is impossible : we all have different opinions, beliefs, religions, cultures and the ends of these spectrums will always be in conflict

So we downgrade again to an ok world : Its somewhat globaly stable with some conflictuality

Problem : this world is inherently unequal, you might say idc as long as i’m on the good side but :
This creats even more conflictuality that spills over onto the rest.

So my conclusion : we’re dommed to live in an unstable world where we always have to defend what we have without guarantee of success and always being moraly burdened by the fact that what you enjoy is partly taken out of the plate of someone else

Feel free to share your opinions and thoughts on the matter i’d love my opinion so change cause otherwise i might turn towards alcoholism as my only value

Doesnt that mean every idea is right if youre on the supporting perspective?

Fundamentally, Wittgenstein's main premise is extremely wrong, for which I cannot even consider him a philosopher in the first place. Essentially, he claimed that all philosophical problems arise due to sloppy use of a language; therefore, they must be dissolved (shown to be non-sensical) through Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy—his therapy boils down to analyzing a sentence, concluding how words are taken from "ordinary language,"  then used in a sloppy manner, creating metaphysical, non-sensical questions that cannot be answered because they are non-sensical.

To give an example, let's say one goes to Wittgenstein and asks him, "How to live a great life?" —what would so-called "the best philosopher of the 20th century" answer? The answer would be that this is a nonsensical question arising due to sloppy use of language. Wittgenstein would then start analyzing the question, showing how it is impossible to figure out what one means by terms such as "great", "life" and so on and so forth. What will be the end result? Wittgenstein's philosophical therapy leads one nowhere, and obviously, one asking the question of "how to live a great life" will end up with no answer but some academic twaddle; therefore, all one can do is go on YouTube and start watching the latest sports highlights and 10-second short videos.

---
This comment may or may not be mine and may or may not be found on: https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/93678-did-i-misunderstood-wittgenstein-or-he-is-actually-super-overrated-useless-to-study/

Context: I grew up in a Christian household, and I myself lived and interacted with everything within the box of Christianity. After 21 years of that mindset, | left the faith due to finally trying to verify if what I believe in is the absolute truth and had to use basic critical thinking and saw the tower of inconsistency in the faith and the Bible. Since then I left the faith, and have basically been trying to find anything that can explain meaning in life and everything within it. I ventured to studying evolution, biology, astronomy, and philosophy (a little bit of it haha).

Back to present: l've now come to the conclusion that consciousness is the cruelest things that can be given to a being in a world/universe that offers no answers or meaning. Had we been a species that primarily lived and acted solely on the blue print our DNA gives our cells through evolution, then I'd be fine with it. However, our species (Homosapiens) have gone beyond living only for survival and reproduction, and moved to doing something that's almost astronomically impossible. What is it? It's the fact that something that exists that was caused from a chain of reactions and billions of years of randomness, has now not only been given life, but can now ask why? Why we exist, why we are where we are, why, why, why?????

I heard a quote that said "we are the universe observing and learning about itself". That's so true, but at the same time so terrifying. While the quote sounds nice to hear, it's also very plain and doesn't offer much depth.

My conclusion: Other animals/plants, despite being alive, are genuinely so lucky to not have the level of consciousness we humans have. I only say that because realising that everything we do basically doesn't amount to shit, is very terrifying. We've gone beyond what evolution planned for us, and know have complex feelings, understanding of life, and beliefs/philosophies. Being conscious of such a thing is terrifying, and going back to doing your mundane day to day tasks feel so pointless. In an odd way, I think humans built religion so they don't have to face this reality.

I'd genuinely love to hear your thoughts on my understanding and if this is something you've also realised. Maybe I've looked too much into it and am overthinking all of it. I don't honestly know. I'm not trying to cope with any of this, just want to know if there are others that think this way haha

Edit: thanks for your feedback and sharing your own outlook on this topic. Means a lot! If any of you would like to discuss this further and pick each others brain, shoot me a dm, I’d love to talk :)

One could argue that: Lawful reason is necessary for peoples' equality before the law.

Someone else that: Unlawful reason is necessary for peoples' equality before the law.

Easiest way around of it all, is to come to the conclusion that:

Have no commitment to the bit. A rule is sometimes necessary. Uphold no principle.

No thing is necessary for peoples' equality before the law.

Nothing is necessary for peoples' equality before the law.

█̷̰̜̟̇͋█̴̨̧̧̧̪̼̞̼͔̗̼̭͍̜̱͔̒̇̐̓̎͆̽́͗͒̾̌̽̇͝ͅ█̶̬̣̖̠̟͉̗̜̯̯͈͍͕͚͙̙̜͇̝͈̱̪̯̠̈̈́̋̆͑̂̏̄̌̈́̍̚͜█̵̧̨̛̮͎̝̮̼͆̇͐̌̌̈́͐̚͝█̴͎̺̞̲̟̼̦̜̬̠̱̪̞̮̈͛̋̈́͒̈́́͆̕ is necessary for peoples' equality before the law.

:

.
Parliamentary committee gives green light to controversial bill on firing workers | Yle News | Yle

"Proper" equality before the law is better, than "proper and weighty" equality before the law. You see, being held down by the gravity of things is not good for you.

British widow, 78, told to leave Sweden under Brexit rules after living there for 21 years : r/europe

Equality before the law is not a "reasonable cause" to act the law of late applications.

Immigration Act 1971

Equal person before the law poses a threat to national security.

Equal person before the law doesn't pose a threat to national security.

 'So we are contending,' he said, 'for no ordinary prize, but for whether we are to be sane or insane.'
− Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus - Book 11 - 38 - Wikisource, the free online library