On Thinking for Oneself... okay, now what?

Bitterly disappointed by Schoppie on this one - where do I go from here? It's like hearing a diagnosis from a doctor and then he shrugs his shoulders and can't prescribe any treatment, drugs, or exercise. I don't know if its the Forer Effect, but he certainly describes me: the man of learning. A man who regurgitates second hand knowledge, akin to a prosthesis of truth. He describes how we can identify the man who thinks for himself (Decisiveness and Definiteness), but apart from being a man who obverses and considers the natural world, and that he waits patiently for the ripeness of resolution of thought. Schopie really doesn't give any sort of place to start to leave the path of the man of learning.
In short: what do?

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    And yes, I'm patently aware of the irony of my question, which is why I believe he should have posed a starting point!

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I would say if you have original knowledge, write it down in a diary or blog instead of posting it here

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And where, in this modern world where the only employment available to me is being a wagecuck, where all paths to innovation are closed and in the terms of Callimachus well rutted by the wagons of those before me am I suppose to amass this "original knowledge"?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        In your head, retard. I do it. You can too.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What do you mean? Give me an example of where you've done it, amassed some 'original knowledge' from your 'head' and it's been useful in your life?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I challenged the concept of sexual consent from a philosophical angle, I used solipsism as a metaphysical jumping point for ethics, I contested that language must have only specific meanings from an epistemic perspective, need I go on?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              And how did that actually turn out to be pragmatically useful?

              >Could you give a specific instance where your arrogance or refusal to submit has paid you dividends in your life?
              I understand intuitively what Schopenhauer is saying here. I understand this because I work from similar assumptions. That's something, right? But by all means, you should live your life however you please. I have a shitty job. I keep it so that I can be alone and write shitty, unpublishable fiction. It's the definition of an irrational way to live your life. Society doesn't reward people like me in the way it rewards the cart-drivers. If I were a purely rational person, I'd have long ago left behind my crackpot independence and submitted to convention, authority, consensus. I'm not the most rational person, and I don't always (or ever) make the most rational decisions.

              That said, it's impossible to know what my mindset and philosophy will have in store for me over the course of my life. The only rational thing about the way I live my life is that it's true to who I am. For me, that trumps any argument — rational or otherwise — that I should live my life rationally with respect to people and cultures, institutions, that aren't me. It's pretty comfy. Reading nutters and iconoclasts like Schop and Nietzsche is an experience in kinship rather than an exercise in comprehension. It's like receiving wisdom from older versions of myself. I'll take that any day over the flighty and ephemeral approval of the rank consensus.

              I see what you mean: you've chosen to live in a way which might be seen as counerthetical to conventional values. However, is that necessarily something unique?
              And I was more wondering what is a specific incident or event, a definitive choice where the knowledge gleaned form books that was not unique to you would have lead you to a irrational choice, but your own knowledge lead to a more rational choice. (I'm not interested in broad discussions about values: I'm more interested in making smarter, more practical decisions within any given set of values. It doesn't matter if you're using a carpentry to build a church or a brothel: knowing carpentry is still practical and useful in both cases)

              Disagree with everything you read and form your own theories

              Yeah but how do I turn theories into practical knowledge?
              It's easy to come up with theories, it's easy to be a contrarian and come up with a theory.
              But most of them will be asinine and counterproductive if done for the sake of rejecting the thoughts of others.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You say that you're not interested in broad conversations about values, but this seems to be precisely what you're discussing. Moving away from the man of learning is a question of values. Being Schopenhauer's "man of learning" is quintessentially a discussion of values. That is why I'm discussing my own values with you. My values are what led me to understand the point here. It is a value of yours to attempt to distill things down into their basic, axiomatic components before you refer to your learning and intellect, from which you gain an understanding and perform cost/benefit analyses, such that you can make smarter and more practical decisions. You come at this desire to make smarter and more practical decisions from assumptions that lean heavily on wholly impractical abstraction. You're asking for an explanation of a phenomenon that can't be explained within the confines of your system of values and beliefs... and expecting it to be neatly shoehorned into that system which has a priori negated them. It's not a problem if comprehension you're struggling with, but one of perspective.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >but this seems to be precisely what you're discussing.
                Nah, or at least not my values, for example making better career decisions is irrespective of my values: but rather entirely determined by what opportunists there are. For example, I cannot get a job with a Big 4 firm. My values have nothing to do with it - whether I want to be hired by them or not doesn't matter - at this particular juncture, I do not know of a recruiter at a Big 4 firm who is looking for someone with my specific experience, skills.
                >>>>>Now in a roundabout way this could be about this imagined recruiter's values....
                But irrespective, the question becomes: how do I maximize my chances of being a suitable candidate for them? Who do I need to talk to? What do I need to observe? What skills do I need to learn etc. etc.
                And this doesn't just apply to a Big 4 firm, it applies in many part of my life
                > from which you gain an understanding and perform cost/benefit analyses
                Interestingly my problem is less about cost/benefit analysis, but just identifying options. Overcoming what I don't know I don't know.
                > but one of perspective.
                Yes... but not in the way you said: it's more like not realizing something is a door, even though you want there to be a door there. That's not a issue of values, that's an issue of not properly registering the objective state of your environment.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well, I don't think this should need to be said, but I'll say it. Schopenhauer wasn't really in the business of writing how-to guides for people to climb the socioeconomic ladder. As long as you're holding onto the "goal" of distilling big concepts down into little nodules, you're going to keep on precluding the possibility that you get anything from it.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Then why did you insist that I "should" read it?
                >Schopenhauer wasn't really in the business of writing how-to guides for people to climb the socioeconomic ladder.
                What about running a communal art project? Not for climbing any economic or status ladders, but rather to learn the skills necessary to motivate, recruit, and coordinate people, and best apply resources in a practical fashion towards a specific goal with a specific communal function for which no single person will get praise?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >And where, in this modern world where the only employment available to me is being a wagecuck, where all paths to innovation are closed and in the terms of Callimachus well rutted by the wagons of those before me am I suppose to amass this "original knowledge"?
        Well, if you can't manage to climb out of the ruts on your own, maybe you're just meant to travel the path and run it down a little more. The fact that you're asking what you're asking means the answer is out of your reach. Schop is winking and nudging the sides of people like him, who intrinsically reject dogma. Ultimately, who cares what Schop thought? His point is that what he thinks is yours as soon as you read him. It's now yours to do what you will with it. Some people take ideas from others and put them in little display cases to be exhibited and catalogued but otherwise left intact. This is their natural tendency. They're the "men of learning" who did all the things and read all the books but never quite managed to veer off the beaten path. They ask themselves what this author meant or about the relationship between this movement and that other movement. They idolize and deify those who came before. Try seeing Schop as your equal instead of some mystical titan whose words need to be comprehended. Try valuing your own reactions to him. You're his superior, in a way. He's dead, and you're alive. You have the freedom to do literally everything he can't do, including using his ideas and words as a springboard for your own ideas that come naturally and unbidden in your interactions therewith.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          What's worked for you?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Arrogance. Refusal to submit to ideology, cults of academia, dogmatism. I have an active disdain for people who concern themselves with discussions and competitions on the ideas of others. I'm only interested in this thread insofar as I recognize Schop's opinions here, with respect to free thought, as if they were my own — they are.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Could you give a specific instance where your arrogance or refusal to submit has paid you dividends in your life? An isolated choice or incident where you can clearly see how if you had to submitted, taken the ideas of others how poorly it would have ended, and how your unique way was the most rational?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Could you give a specific instance where your arrogance or refusal to submit has paid you dividends in your life?
                I understand intuitively what Schopenhauer is saying here. I understand this because I work from similar assumptions. That's something, right? But by all means, you should live your life however you please. I have a shitty job. I keep it so that I can be alone and write shitty, unpublishable fiction. It's the definition of an irrational way to live your life. Society doesn't reward people like me in the way it rewards the cart-drivers. If I were a purely rational person, I'd have long ago left behind my crackpot independence and submitted to convention, authority, consensus. I'm not the most rational person, and I don't always (or ever) make the most rational decisions.

                That said, it's impossible to know what my mindset and philosophy will have in store for me over the course of my life. The only rational thing about the way I live my life is that it's true to who I am. For me, that trumps any argument — rational or otherwise — that I should live my life rationally with respect to people and cultures, institutions, that aren't me. It's pretty comfy. Reading nutters and iconoclasts like Schop and Nietzsche is an experience in kinship rather than an exercise in comprehension. It's like receiving wisdom from older versions of myself. I'll take that any day over the flighty and ephemeral approval of the rank consensus.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You're supposed to read the critique of pure reason before reading schoppy's metaphysics.

    t. has read schoppy before Kant

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      How is this metaphysics?
      Also, prove how well you read it by answering the question in plain English

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The fact of having read, understood, and meditated the critique of pure reason definitely implies thinking for oneself, which Schoppy did for the most part. His World as Representation directly follows from Kant's Transcendental Aesthetic, which is arguably the peak of Kant's book. You should read it if you haven't.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >You should read it if you haven't.
          I have no interest in metaphysics, only learning practical knowledge for real life: making better decisions with regards to my career, which skills I learn, which tasks I prioritize - why should I read Critique of Pure Reason and then World as Representation keeping my specific interests in mind? My interests are, I remind you, practical knowledge including making better career decisions, prioritizing tasks for maximum expeditiousness (and these tasks can be as banal as chores around the house or as complicated as a communal art project).

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            [log in to view media]

            because metaphysical and epistemological questions necessarily come prior to ethical and practical questions. If what is knowledge remains undetermined and what is real remains undetermined then how the hell are we supposed to act rightly, in other words, in accordance with knowledge of what is real? Without certainty in metaphysics and epistemology, life is basically without a framework in which to make sense of things, and nothing therefore makes any sense, and there is no better reason to do one thing rather than an other. People without metaphysical awareness are basically npc's who havn't really thought about life.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >because metaphysical and epistemological questions necessarily come prior to ethical and practical questions.
              You ever heard that Emo Philips joke where his father shows to him the principle of dialectic but smashing his head against the floor when he tried to argue Socratically that he shouldn't clean the kitchen?
              >Without certainty in metaphysics and epistemology, life is basically without a framework in which to make sense of things, and nothing therefore makes any sense,
              And how does metaphysics help me more consistently make the money to buy food and shelter so that I can have the (assuming the epistemological status of modern science is worthy) blood glucose and protection from the elements necessary to contemplate the ontology of my being, of shelter, of rain and heat so that I might be sure that these things exist? Or am I to blindly abandon all intuition and take a provisional sophistical stance, should I be frost-bite, I will simply question the ontological status of my body? Should I be mugged? Well money is a meaningless symbol attached to a world that is illusory populated by beings that I can't even attest to the epistemological veracity of, let alone the true ontology: that is whether they are conscious or NPCs or perhaps manifestations of some secondary phenomena.
              Nah, I think I'll pass.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                *provisionally soplitisitic stance
                but I have to admit "sophistic stance" is a hilarious pun I wish I had of intended it

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                [log in to view media]

                if you only you knew how things really are

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Jo Wit
                I already know more than you

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Hey anon, how will reading a Critque of Pure Reason and Will and... help me answer

          >but this seems to be precisely what you're discussing.
          Nah, or at least not my values, for example making better career decisions is irrespective of my values: but rather entirely determined by what opportunists there are. For example, I cannot get a job with a Big 4 firm. My values have nothing to do with it - whether I want to be hired by them or not doesn't matter - at this particular juncture, I do not know of a recruiter at a Big 4 firm who is looking for someone with my specific experience, skills.
          >>>>>Now in a roundabout way this could be about this imagined recruiter's values....
          But irrespective, the question becomes: how do I maximize my chances of being a suitable candidate for them? Who do I need to talk to? What do I need to observe? What skills do I need to learn etc. etc.
          And this doesn't just apply to a Big 4 firm, it applies in many part of my life
          > from which you gain an understanding and perform cost/benefit analyses
          Interestingly my problem is less about cost/benefit analysis, but just identifying options. Overcoming what I don't know I don't know.
          > but one of perspective.
          Yes... but not in the way you said: it's more like not realizing something is a door, even though you want there to be a door there. That's not a issue of values, that's an issue of not properly registering the objective state of your environment.

          these questions? Why did you say I should read it?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Why did you say I should read it?
            Your post was about Schopenhauer, so I assumed you were familiar with his metaphysics. Since you don't seem interested about metaphysics at all, I have nothing to suggest to you.
            Why did you first read Schopenhauer?

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Reposting... Because anons on here spruiked it. I read this particular one because I thought, "interesting title, boy, I sure wish I was the kind of person who could make penetrating and unique insights and act upon them accordingly. I appear only to regurgitate things I read and not be able to apply them in the real world"

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Disagree with everything you read and form your own theories

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Nothing is original. You'll see that if you ever decide to work your way back through the history of an idea in philosophy. Everyone who has ever created something is a plagiarist to the maximum degree. But this is not a bad thing. Originality comes from using other people's ideas in unique ways. Today there is a great emphasis on rigorous sourcing and referencing and a big stigma against plagiarism. But ironically the most creative and original thinkers are also the biggest plagiarists. This is why modern academia has seen the death of the renowned individual philosopher. It took me 2 years of uni to realize that.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    Didn't read the whole thread, so I don't know if someone already said it...but you are who you are. Why do you even want to change?
    There are leaders and there are followers. There are bosses and right hands of bosses and assistants and foot soldiers.
    Not everybody can be Alexander the Great, he needs thousands of soldiers who are not him. Not everyone can be Plato, he needs supporters that call themselves Platonists.

    Schopenhauer probably didn't give an advice, because he doesn't believe there is a solution for that. In World as Will and Represantation he clearly says that people don't change, they just discover who they are. You try different things your whole life until you finally realize who you really are.

Your email address will not be published.