[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 24 KB, 229x343, 1592478873290.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17509792 No.17509792 [Reply] [Original]

How do you determine what the fuck to believe in?
The more I read, the more uncertain I become. I wish I could have some kind of guiding certainty or belief, but there is nothing. Just doubt.

>> No.17509810

Sounds like you're a gullible person susceptible to the animal farm effect. Reading is useful for expanding an already mostly solid mind. It is not useful for people with no idea what to believe. Go outside and figure out what you believe, then read a couple books and question the ideas in the book and critically evaluate which make sense.

>> No.17509817

>>17509810
>Sounds like you're a gullible person susceptible to the animal farm effect.
Yes I'm a fucking non-person, my opinions change every other day as soon as I read something sufficiently convincing

>> No.17509820

>>17509792
Put your belief into your doubt so you can stop questioning it and move on. The rest will fall into place shortly after.

>> No.17509827

>>17509792
doubt is important to grow, but lack of having the disposition for any sort of firm belief is usually a sign of insecurity or lack of confidence in yourself and your opinions

Until you understand that intuition is feasable and worthy of being relied upon, you won't make any progress

>> No.17509840

>>17509792
Elimination of false believes until only daoism is left

>> No.17509847

>>17509792
>The more I read, the more uncertain I become
That's good. Read these https://www.amazon.com/Mystique-Enlightenment-Radical-Ideas-Krishnamurti/dp/0971078610
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Myth-Disquieting-Conversations-Called/dp/1591810655

>> No.17509860

>>17509820
>Put your belief into your doubt
You mean embrace skepticism?

>>17509827
The only firm belief I have is that I don't believe in materialism or any form of reductionist physicalism.
>intuition is feasable and worthy of being relied upon
I don't have any valuable intuitions.

>> No.17509890

>>17509840
What do you mean by "elimination of false beliefs" and why should daoism be left in the end?

>>17509847
I've heard of him, it sounds like he's more or less against philosophical speculation in general and wants people to value just being conscious and nothing else.

>> No.17509910

>>17509890
>elimination of false beliefs"
Christianity is false, Islam is false, etc.
>and why should daoism be left in the end?
Early daoism is not dependent on a mind without brain and acknowledges our inability to know ultimate reality. Just my opinion that it will remain I'm not proselytizing

>> No.17509920

>>17509910
>Christianity is false, Islam is false
How can you be sure of this?
>acknowledges our inability to know ultimate reality.
I think there are several philosophies that touch upon this, in the west too.

>> No.17509931

>>17509847
HOLY FRICKING GIGA BASED

>> No.17509949

>>17509920
>How can you be sure of this?
They make falsifiable truth claims
>I think there are several philosophies that touch upon this, in the west too.
Sure. Stoicism for example is very similar. If you can elaborate on your problem maybe I can rec something western

>> No.17509952

>>17509931
>>17509847
cringe

>> No.17509998

>>17509949
>They make falsifiable truth claims
Like what? They'll just tell you it's a metaphor.
>If you can elaborate on your problem maybe I can rec something western
I'm not looking for something specifically western or eastern or whatever.
My problem is that when I read new ideas about reality I'm easily convinced but there's really nothing that grounds me or gives me a deep feeling of truth that I can rely on for further inquiry. Things never really click, ideas can make sense but in the end they're never "ultimate" enough and I end up moving on. I'm expressing myself like a retard but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
I really envy people who find the description of reality that fits them and manages to arouse true faith in them, which keeps them going. To me everything seems possible and nothing seems certain.

>> No.17510012

>>17509860
The one firm belief he has is wrong...

>> No.17510015

>>17510012
You won't be able to make me doubt this one, sorry.

>> No.17510064

>>17509998
>Like what? They'll just tell you it's a metaphor.
Hey man your problem here is your lack of belief let's not argue abrahamic religions now.

I'm not trying to be insulting but it sounds lile you are looking for belief systems to fix your more mundane problems. We will never have answers. Read Hadot's philosophy as a way of life or skip it altogether and get a fullfilling hobby. Then revisit philosophy and religion from a less frustrated point.

>> No.17510084

Solve et coagula, anon. Solve always comes before coagula. If the nature of the world and of knowledge of the world were ONLY solvere, there would be no force pulling you (even now) to some future coagulare.

What do you know? You know you're really in this bitch, you know you're you. You don't know what that you is, but you know it. You know that nothing in your ordinary knowledge is permanent, that when you doubt all the way down to the bottom, it's possible to find that there isn't even a bottom, that the essence of ordinary knowledge is movement and change, not stability. But certain things don't change. You are still there, even amidst all the movement with no stability. And you feel yourself pulled, even when posting this thread, to something beyond the flux, to some stability that doesn't dissolve, like all the ordinary bits of knowledge you have tried out so far.

What do you think inspired Socrates and Plato? Was it the natural philosophy or proto-science Anaxagoras or Thales? No, it was Heraclitus, because Heraclitus brought the problem of flux to its highest point, practically daring anyone who came after him to find a way to designate something stable in the flux, when even their very designations would have to take place WITHIN that flux, and thus could not be stable. That is why flux is a paradox. Socrates and Plato didn't retreat away from Heraclitus' articulation of flux as the only manifest fact of the world, they embraced it, but put emphasis on MANIFEST. I said above, "ordinary knowledge," not knowledge. The discovery of flux, of sceptical regress and free fall, is indeed a decisive blow to the stability of ordinary, manifest knowledge. And this discovery initially causes a feeling of vertigo. But instead of trying to retreat from the vertigo, Socrates and Plato observed that there are forces and inclinations still pulling on us even when we seem to doubt everything else. Even when we can't discursively demonstrate something with certainty, we have a priori ideas of certainty. Even when we can't discursively demonstrate morality, even when all of our inquiries into morality terminate in nihilism and aporia, we still feel a fragment of "the" moral within us.

The more we follow this fragment, which is not itself discursive but a sort of law or north star "governing" all of our particular, discursive articulations of it, the better, or more "adequate" our discursive articulations become, and the more we seem to feel and even see something behind and beyond the manifest and the ordinary.

Discursive knowledge is a tool. Even mathematical proofs are expressed in this language. Complacent minds never question the parameters or the "why" of their pre-give ntools. Slightly stronger minds realise the contingency of their tools but never seek beyond that, assuming the nature of nature is raw contingency. Wise minds ask "Who made the tools? In the image of what, or of whom, are the tools made?"

>> No.17510090

>>17510084
>Now we must ask: how is it with the position of the network of concepts in regard to super-sensible reality? When he, who through the methods of clairvoyance discloses the super-sensible reality, now approaches this reality with his concepts, he will thus find the network of concepts coincides just as much with the super-sensible world. From the other side the super-sensible reality throws its rays as it were on the network of concepts, as on the one side does the sensible reality.

>Now whence comes this network of concepts itself? Here that can only be asserted as fact, for the answer to this question can only result as the consequence of the logical path which we shall yet be able to take together. Today I will only give you a picture of this network of concepts, in order to show whence the network, which a man weaves within him, takes it origin. That is best made clear by a shadow picture. The shadow-picture of the hand would never arise if the hand were not there. The shadow-picture resembles its prototype, but it has one peculiarity! it is nothing! Through the fact that in the place of light the non-light comes, through the partial occluding of the light the shadow-picture comes into being. The concepts arise in exactly the same way, through the fact that behind our thinking soul there stands the super-sensible reality.

>The concepts also are really only an obliteration of the super-sensible reality, and because they resemble the spiritual world, as the shadow-pictures do the prototypes, for this reason the human being can form an inkling of the super-sensible worlds. When the perception of the super-sensible makes concept with the sensible, then these shadow-pictures arise. In the conceptual shadow-pictures you have the super-sensible reality just as little as in the shadow-picture of the hand you have the hand itself. Accordingly we have recognized here that the concepts are the boundary between the two realities, but originate from the super-sensible reality.

>> No.17510128

>>17510064
I don't really have any mundane problems, my life is going well. The biggest problem in my life is what I'm describing.
>We will never have answers
Maybe not but we can have unshakeable faith. And I don't necessarily mean in a religion, but in a belief in general.

>> No.17510154

>>17510128
>Maybe not but we can have unshakeable faith.
We really can't. Even if you would reach enlightenment you would find a study 48 hours later that demonstrates how mystical experiences are a brain phenomenon and doubt your experience.
Embrace the absurd. Read Nietzsche and Camus and then kick it

>> No.17510160

>>17510154
>We really can't.
Some people do and will hold on to their faith no matter what.

>> No.17510181

>>17509792
Experience life first hand, not from books. It's the best teacher.

>> No.17510183

bibble

>> No.17510255

>>17510084
>>17510090
I appreciate the effortpost, but I have my doubts about Platonism. Are we certain that some things don't change? How do I even know that the axioms you mention earlier (knowing I exist, and knowing I exist in this world) are not illusions or misconceptions stemming from a sort of veil of ignorance? Why should the a priori ideas that arise in our minds necessarily reflect a hypothetical ultimate reality, and why should we even trust these intuitions to point towards anything meaningful or lasting?
Isn't this just one possible model or explanation among various, equally unverifiable possibilities?

>> No.17510273

>>17510012
kek

>> No.17510291

>>17509792
You don't. It isn't a conscious choice.

>> No.17510314

>>17510291
What is it then?

>> No.17510327

>>17509949
>They make falsifiable truth claims
You can't say this and not elaborate

>> No.17510332

>>17509792
you pick your axioms
you keep them analyzed
you REALLY keep them analyzed
you decide what to believe based on that
you never let yourself become an AUTIST.
Here, Trilemma solved, one of the options is clearly better than the other two.
Now let's go on.

>> No.17510349

OP look into the Kalama Sutta
Or if you dont want to, basically just believe whatever makes you do good actions and doubt what makes you do bad actions.
Then your only problem is understanding what is good and what is bad, which 95 percent of the time even serial killers understand.

>> No.17510400

>>17510332
>you pick your axioms
How?

>>17510349
>Kalama sutta
This basically tells me I should embrace skepticism.
Why should I be compelled to do good instead of bad? Not to sound like an edgelord but why should I assume there is an underlying value to the good/bad duality?

>> No.17510407

>>17509792
schizoanalysis

>> No.17510413
File: 149 KB, 1029x1000, mNkCsbi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17510413

>>17509810
>animal farm effect

>> No.17510442

>>17510327
Well?

>> No.17510472

>>17510314
You're born with a certain psychological disposition and you're raised within a certain culture. Everything you "choose" to believe or not believe is ultimately conditioned and in effect determined by things outside of your control.

>> No.17510488

>>17510472
>determinism
Eh.

>> No.17510546

>>17510413
He's right

>> No.17510572

>>17510413
nice argument

>> No.17510590

You need esoteric training to get to a state of objective consciousness. Read Gurdjieff. Start with "in search of the miraculous" by p.d. ouspensky.

>> No.17510629

>>17510590
Would also like to add... use gurdjieff's ideas as a launching pad for further research.. namely psychology, cognitive sciences and neuroscience.. get your diet in check because that also affects your mind and how you think...

>> No.17510630

>>17510488
I'm not trying to make a point about muh determinism. I'm only trying to point out that you tend to be much more influenced by these things than you are consciously aware of. The thought of "choosing beliefs" has a striking resemblance to the structure of commodity, to name one example.

>> No.17510681

suspend judgement, develop eudaimonia, and achieve ataraxia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism

>> No.17510928

>>17510546
>>17510572
"YOU WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO USE IT AS A MANUAL" tier shit

>> No.17510970

>>17510928
in what way? Because it's also a reference to an orwell novel? "animal farm effect" is afaik not an existing term, I just said it because that's what I thought of. Is the comparison not apt?

>> No.17511187

>>17509792
Bible

>> No.17511696
File: 2.78 MB, 1600x2733, Kars conversion---.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17511696

>>17509792
Look into the Catholic Church, anon. Founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 year ago, and saving souls ever since. It's a big tent, and there's room for everybody.

>> No.17511708

>>17510970
Any reference to Orwell is cringe regardless of context, he's was a hack

>> No.17511750

>>17509860
>The only firm belief I have is that I don't believe in materialism or any form of reductionist physicalism.
Good. Now doubt that belief.

>> No.17511875

>>17511708
k

>> No.17511940
File: 39 KB, 178x282, cityofgod.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17511940

>>17509792

>> No.17511951
File: 488 KB, 790x480, conversion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17511951

>>17511696

Unironically this. Stop with the "I'm too smart for that" bullshit and read old school Church Fathers, the Platonists (Plotinus etc) and pull your head out of your ass.

>> No.17513729

Bump

>> No.17513783

>>17509792
>Chrysippus died of unending despair
Wut, I thought he died from uncontrollable laughter at a donkey eating his figs, and telling a slave to give it a drink of whine to wash them down?

>> No.17513850

>>17511696
>>17511951
No, Christianity feels completely false to me.

>> No.17513902

>>17509817
>Yes I'm a fucking non-person
I know this feel, fellow npc. It's not pretty.

>> No.17513915

>>17511951
>two millennia ago a jewish carpenter who is also the son of god and also god came to earth and died so that he could save you from what he was going to do to you if he didn't save you
>also you need to follow the rules in this book because it's part of the divine plan
lol

>> No.17513952

>>17509817
Same, I'm such a gullible fuck

>> No.17513972

>>17509817
I'm like this too, how do we change? I cope by just not strongly believing in anything at all.

>> No.17513988

hi op, you stumbled on THE question, congrats
nobody in this thread can guide you, the short answer is to read more and read widely. You will eventually stop just accepting every opinion, but that process is an important one that everybody goes through.

>> No.17514163

>>17513988
Did you find your answer?

>> No.17514530

>>17513972
>how do we change?
If I knew I wouldn't have made this thread anon.

>> No.17514737

>>17509792
Who told you that you need to believe? Be present and everything will reveal itself. Then you can know instead of believe. It's better to listen then to read. Just listen to reality unfold, and respond to it's calls like a Hero, or a bum, or man in love, or a man in fear, or as anger, or whatever else wants to speak. All you do is listen, then act.

>> No.17514759
File: 491 KB, 1061x1036, 1611104170155.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17514759

Go full apophatic. Anything else is memes.

>> No.17514939

>>17514759
>Go full apophatic.
Meaning what exactly?

>> No.17515149

>>17514939
bump

>> No.17515207

>>17509860
lmao so you're a genuine retard. No wonder you're uncertain of everything if those are your only firm beliefs. Can't build a castle on sand.

>> No.17515211

>>17509792
You'll eventually be tired of being in a constant state of doubt and it'll lead to you getting strong convictions

>> No.17515215

>>17515207
Being an edgelord isn't a personality. Grow up.

>> No.17515226

>>17513783
it's a bad meme you dip. The original wikipedia screencap will always be funnier than that inverted meme

>> No.17515228

>>17514939
>>17515149
>Apophatic
>(of knowledge of God) obtained through negating concepts that might be applied to him.
A good example is Mystical Theology by Pseudo-Dyonisius

>> No.17515235

>>17515228
How can you be sure there even is a God?

>> No.17515236

>>17515215
I'm not being an edgelord or immature if I say that "I don't believe in materialism or any form of reductionist physicalism" is a dumb worldview and the source of your uncertainties.

>> No.17515240

>>17515236
Materialism is the pure NPC bugman stance. I'd rather be uncertain than an unironic materialist.

>> No.17515245

>>17515235
You honestly want to leave theological concerns behind and just enter the silence of pure negation. That's where all your answers are.

>> No.17515246

>>17515245
>That's where all your answers are.
In theology?

>> No.17515261

>>17515246
You should read my sentence again.

>> No.17515266

>>17515261
Sorry I'm tired.
How can there be answers in absolute negation?

>> No.17515276

>>17515266
Go and find out.

>> No.17515289

>>17515240
why is something supernatural/immaterial existing so important to you? Why are you certain of it? If you really want certainty but you also bind yourself exclusively to religions and meme philosophies, you're just going to have to pick one. Doesn't matter which one as long as you can practice absolute faith in it.

>> No.17515290

>>17515289
because he heard on /lit/ that materialism is bugman-tier

>> No.17515298

>>17515289
It's not that it's important. Another guy ITT talked about intuition, I guess that's it.
>pick one. Doesn't matter which one
Not true, I can't elicit faith mechanically.

>>17515290
>all of my opinions come from /lit/
Project harder.

>> No.17515334

>How do you determine what the fuck to believe in?
It depends. The most important step here is to separate objective truth from subjective truth. Fields like math, physics, chemistry, history etc. all seek an objective, singular interpretation of how things happen(ed). If you want to know what to believe in these fields, you need to approach them logically.
In fields such as philosophy or politics (which I assume you're talking about since we're on /lit/) it will always ultimately come down to what you value.
If you asked a superintelligence what the best political system is, it would ask you under what ethical system you were working (i.e., what goal is trying to be achieved). Utilitarianism? Kantian ethics? Egoism?
If you asked the superintelligence which of these ethical systems was the best, it would be unable to answer, because it comes down to what is important to you - which, as others ITT have already pointed out, is derived from intuition/gut feeling. You can't learn this from a book.
A good place to start when working your way up to an political or philosophical ideal is to think about things that you feel strongly about; surely there's something, even if it's as simple as "pain is bad and pleasure is good".

>> No.17515336

>>17511708
Stay a while tourist, you might learn something one day

>> No.17515341

I know what I value but I don't know what is true. How do you find truth?

>> No.17515347

>>17515334
Ok, then I should build up on the only strong intuition I have (that there is more to existence than what is immediately, physically perceivable) and go on from there? But there are so many different schools of thought that branch out from this idea, and I have no idea how to proceed from there since there's nothing else I feel as strongly about (that immediately comes to mind, at least).

>> No.17515369

>>17515347
>But there are so many different schools of thought that branch out from this idea
This is where true, complete understanding can be found - from synthesizing the knowledge of different schools of thought. Just start anywhere that seems interesting to you, and then choose another book that seems interesting to you, and you'll slowly start to fill in the gaps and draw your own conclusions.

>> No.17515384

>>17515369
You could go your entire life reading works from various philosophers and never really "filling in the gaps", couldn't you? Just jumping from one branch to another seems like a dangerous way to go about this.

>> No.17515424

>>17515384
>You could go your entire life reading works from various philosophers and never really "filling in the gaps", couldn't you?
I guess so, it's worked reasonably well for me. I guess it depends on your thinking style (linear vs. lateral or whatever).
Unironically you can't go wrong with starting with the Greeks. It's a meme for a reason. If you're interested in
>(that there is more to existence than what is immediately, physically perceivable)
you should probably start with Plato, since he influenced virtually everyone else you're going to be reading in this field anyway

>> No.17515429

>>17515424
About Plato, could you address >>17510255?

>> No.17515482

>>17515429
>How do I even know that the axioms you mention earlier (knowing I exist, and knowing I exist in this world) are not illusions or misconceptions stemming from a sort of veil of ignorance?
they could very well stem from ignorance
it doesn't change the fact that virtually all western writings about understanding nonmaterial were influenced by Plato in some way, even if his understanding was incomplete. Even if you disagree it's a good place to start

>> No.17515487

>>17515482
Is there anything I absolutely should read aside from the Republic and Phaedo?

>> No.17515503

>>17515487
IDK I'm not a Plato expert desu
that should at least be a good starting point