Philosophy Philosophy is Supplementary

[GGWP]

It's good for expanding the scope of ideas your mind can comprehend, but I think philosophy should always remain supplementary, as a way to add flavor to life and nothing more. If you spend your entire life studying the thoughts of someone else instead of actively trying to create a unique brand of personal thought, I think it's a bit of a waste.

Especially as most philosophies are now redundant in the face of scientific materialism, unless you believe in some flavor of exoticism with regards to Perennialism. I think there is something to be said about how shapes from alternative dimensions could manifest as properties in the physical world, but you don't need Perennialism for this; in physics there are theories like String Theory or E6/8 Theory.

I feel philosophy is only good for acting as a crutch for other things, not as a field of intensive study on its own. Modern philosophy/Metaphysics has been superseded by theoretical and quantum physics; there is room for ontological debates due to slight wiggle room surrounding the big bang but even this is more in the realm of Astrophysics. As for epistemological debates, this is moreso consigned to neuroscience and information theory. Philosophy as a discipline is characterized by an effete, novelty-seeking idealism, populated by those that want to prove their intellectual uniqueness. There is nothing wrong with this, because boastfulness is a classic human mating strategy and I think modern society is all about cultivating a diversity of neurotypes, but it can be said that philosophy is a bit of a redundant art in the 21st century in practical terms.

So-called professional philosophers in 2025 are questionable purely because they are not versed in the genuine principles of the universe, having read much of Plato, Diogenes, Kant, Wittigenstein, but nothing of 21st century science, because philosophy is not science but art. There are some mathematical philosophers and logicians, but they are too blinded by their own systematizing tendencies to realize that their neurology leaks into their own 'objective' views about existence; their mindset is 100 years out of date. Of course they want the universe to be mathematical and logical, because that is what they are good at. In reality, I think the systematizing tendencies of their mind are an expression of hominid development, and mathematics is associated with territory-definitions, compartmentalization and resource provisioning implicated in highly encephalized human brain regions such as the inferior parietal lobule.

My view of the universe is that subjects are broken down holonically and it has no qualitative substance on its own. As in, 'objects' can only be defined to exist independent of a 'Platonic' sea because neurons have learned to extract features from benign patterns. A chair, for instance, only appears as a chair because these neural patterns have been reliably communicated and reinforced between human observers; to animals chairs would just be a weird obstacle. Pressure differentials exist in isolation, but 'sound' requires an observer to interpret it. I'll try not to be too hypocritical; yes, I understand the irony of admonishing mathematical philosophers based on neurological bias while extoling neuroscientific principles as someone who is very into Neuroscience, but I think it's pretty accepted that different brains are optimized to form different conclusions, so in my opinion there is only more and more obscure, holonic pattern-seeking dependent on the organism and never definitive truth. I think the most important philosophers today are Kant and Whitehead.



Let me know what you think about this one. Is Philosophy still relevant in the 21st century, or is it a dying art? Do you have any favorite 20th or 21st century philosophers?

 

[Apollo]

It's good for expanding the scope of ideas your mind can comprehend, but I think philosophy should always remain supplementary, as a way to add flavor to life and nothing more. If you spend your entire life studying the thoughts of someone else instead of actively trying to create a unique brand of personal thought, I think it's a bit of a waste.

Especially as most philosophies are now redundant in the face of scientific materialism, unless you believe in some flavor of exoticism with regards to Perennialism. I think there is something to be said about how shapes from alternative dimensions could manifest as properties in the physical world, but you don't need Perennialism for this; in physics there are theories like String Theory or E6/8 Theory.

I feel philosophy is only good for acting as a crutch for other things, not as a field of intensive study on its own. Modern philosophy/Metaphysics has been superseded by theoretical and quantum physics; there is room for ontological debates due to slight wiggle room surrounding the big bang but even this is more in the realm of Astrophysics. As for epistemological debates, this is moreso consigned to neuroscience and information theory. Philosophy as a discipline is characterized by an effete, novelty-seeking idealism, populated by those that want to prove their intellectual uniqueness. There is nothing wrong with this, because boastfulness is a classic human mating strategy and I think modern society is all about cultivating a diversity of neurotypes, but it can be said that philosophy is a bit of a redundant art in the 21st century in practical terms.

So-called professional philosophers in 2025 are questionable purely because they are not versed in the genuine principles of the universe, having read much of Plato, Diogenes, Kant, Wittigenstein, but nothing of 21st century science, because philosophy is not science but art. There are some mathematical philosophers and logicians, but they are too blinded by their own systematizing tendencies to realize that their neurology leaks into their own 'objective' views about existence; their mindset is 100 years out of date. Of course they want the universe to be mathematical and logical, because that is what they are good at. In reality, I think the systematizing tendencies of their mind are an expression of hominid development, and mathematics is associated with territory-definitions, compartmentalization and resource provisioning implicated in highly encephalized human brain regions such as the inferior parietal lobule.

My view of the universe is that subjects are broken down holonically and it has no qualitative substance on its own. As in, 'objects' can only be defined to exist independent of a 'Platonic' sea because neurons have learned to extract features from benign patterns. A chair, for instance, only appears as a chair because these neural patterns have been reliably communicated and reinforced between human observers; to animals chairs would just be a weird obstacle. Pressure differentials exist in isolation, but 'sound' requires an observer to interpret it. I'll try not to be too hypocritical; yes, I understand the irony of admonishing mathematical philosophers based on neurological bias while extoling neuroscientific principles as someone who is very into Neuroscience, but I think it's pretty accepted that different brains are optimized to form different conclusions, so in my opinion there is only more and more obscure, holonic pattern-seeking dependent on the organism and never definitive truth. I think the most important philosophers today are Kant and Whitehead.



Let me know what you think about this one. Is Philosophy still relevant in the 21st century, or is it a dying art? Do you have any favorite 20th or 21st century philosophers?

My tree system is now math+Computer Science+Philosophy+Languages+writing, to later Philosophical Math, i am using philosophy as a substitute to other humanities for the sake of staying in utilitarian hunter mode (meaning pure output and discipline) on a hellenism theology system, so i find your take hunting as mine system philosophy is the core.

 

[newsincerity]

"Once we let go of intuitive false assumptions about nature of reality it opens doors of mystery"
says this after implying the Earth is a globe and that scientists saved us from our deceptive intuition (the stupid animals we are)

Scientists are the biggest gatekeepers of the world of mystery. They lost the key and don't let others because of their conditioning.

 

[Foidkiller]

"Once we let go of intuitive false assumptions about nature of reality it opens doors of mystery"
says this after implying the Earth is a globe and that scientists saved us from our deceptive intuition (the stupid animals we are)

Scientists are the biggest gatekeepers of the world of mystery. They lost the key and don't let others because of their conditioning.

Why do you think the moon landing was faked, no one-word responses

Is Philosophy still relevant in the 21st century, or is it a dying art? Do you have any favorite 20th or 21st century philosophers?

Oxymoron
Philo sophia means love of wisdom
There has not been a single person who followed this way of living, since so-called antiquity
Wittgenstein made a great study in language games
Evola, for me, in a way, laid out an ethical or moral framework, you could say

 

[Two-jay]

Philosophy as a discipline is characterized by an effete, novelty-seeking idealism, populated by those that want to prove their intellectual uniqueness. There is nothing wrong with this, because boastfulness is a classic human mating strategy and I think modern society is all about cultivating a diversity of neurotypes, but it can be said that philosophy is a bit of a redundant art in the 21st century in practical terms.

I just wanted to advice you against being so evolutionary-psychology centric when psychoanalyzing human behaviour. I think that we should open ourselves to the possibility that human behaviour might be also influenced by unconscious narratives product of life experience. Honestly, never underestimate the capacity for unconscious beliefs to influence behavior! This might sound funny, but what if someone is that way, as you say, because he never received enough validation as a child (lmao)?

Yes, I know. I might be projecting my own psychological deficiencies, but I hope this gets the point across. Anyways, going back to the point. As you see, what if that thing that happened when that person was a child started creating self-damaging narratives of not "deserving love"? How do you think this person will go on in life? Compensation. Anything works.

Man, I think that should know it. The default network mode starts throwing off whatever bullshit to you when something painful happens. It is because, in my opinion, any self-narrative works because the ego-structure is only designed for survival and reproduction, and it achieves this purpose by the creation of narratives of all kinds that tell you about your role in relation to the world, and that's precisely why conscious action might be helpful so that you don't fall prey of this unconscious patterns of action.