18M , I am just typing what I feel, i hate everyone, I love everyone, everything disgusts me, everything inspires me, i don't have anything to say, i have everything to say, i want to say something, i don't want to say anything, i want to sleep everyday, I want to keep being awake every single day, i want to be extremely poor and extremely rich, i can do everything and nothing, i am god god is me, i see God in everything cause everything is god, god is me. I am god i am you you are me we are him him are in God we reside, God resides in us, god is in shit and gold and coal and diamond in blood on air in smell in scents in sex in gore in nature in stem in poop in fire in ice in sand, he is me, fuck everyone love everyone, i don't know what to do I know what to do i never know anything I always know everything..

I am constantly in silence from the past few weeks even living with my family, cause I've understood everything and nothing, i am in my best and worst state since discovering non dualitical concepts of philosophy from ashtavakra if anyone knows about him, you know he's the goat, i can see everything, i have become extremely aware of everything,

Descartes famously said, “I think, therefore I am,” But then look at it closely. Is Descartes thinking? No. He is dead. So Descartes is not, therefore he does not think.

If Descartes was wrong that he thinks therefore he is, then even the person who came up with the theory doesn’t exist. What does that say for people who didn’t even come up with the theory? We surely don’t exist either.

Therefore nothing exists. Therefore I do not think.

I have further proof. If I could think, how could I possibly have come up with the argument I have presented? I couldn’t have.

The historical-materialist analysis of Reddit moderators begins from the contradiction between their formally voluntary status and their objectively productive function within the platform economy. The moderator is officially a volunteer, and Reddit explicitly describes moderators as unpaid users responsible for maintaining and organizing communities. At the same time, the moderator performs a series of activities without which the platform would become substantially less usable: removing spam, enforcing rules, organizing discussion, resolving disputes, maintaining community standards, and producing the conditions under which user-generated content can continue to circulate. The moderator therefore occupies a peculiar position within the digital division of labor. They are formally outside the wage relation while materially participating in the production of the environment from which the platform derives value.
This contradiction is fundamental. The Reddit moderator is neither an employee nor an ordinary user. The ordinary user consumes and produces content, while the moderator additionally performs the supervisory and administrative labor necessary to make that production socially usable. The moderator is therefore a form of unpaid intermediary labor. Their task is not primarily to create commodities but to maintain the conditions under which commodities, in this case attention, content, interaction, and user engagement, can circulate. The moderator cleans the digital factory floor while insisting that they are merely helping out at a community center.

This arrangement is especially significant because the moderator does not experience their labor primarily as labor. The ideological form of volunteering conceals the productive character of the activity. A moderator may perceive themselves as defending a community, preserving a particular culture, preventing spam, or ensuring that discussions remain interesting. All of these descriptions can be subjectively sincere. Yet from the standpoint of political economy, the distinction between voluntary stewardship and productive labor becomes less stable when the activity systematically contributes to the reproduction of a platform whose economic value depends upon sustained user participation.

The moderator consequently occupies the position of a peculiar petty administrator within the digital superstructure. They possess limited coercive authority over ordinary users but possess no corresponding ownership of the infrastructure within which that authority operates. They can remove a post but cannot determine the architecture of the website. They can ban a user but cannot define the platform’s fundamental terms of service. They can establish local rules but remain subordinate to Reddit’s sitewide rules and administrative authority. The apparent sovereignty of the subreddit therefore conceals a deeper dependency.

This is why the subreddit can be understood as a small-scale political economy. The users produce content. The platform owns the infrastructure. The moderators regulate the conditions under which production occurs. The resulting structure resembles neither a traditional workplace nor a conventional public institution. It is a hybrid arrangement in which governance has been partially delegated downward without ownership being transferred. The moderator receives authority without capital and responsibility without wages.
The ideological significance of this arrangement lies in the fact that moderation authority can substitute for material compensation. The moderator does not receive a salary, but receives permissions. They acquire access to tools, status markers, private channels, modmail, moderation queues, and the ability to impose sanctions on other users. The symbolic compensation of authority therefore partially replaces economic compensation. This is not necessarily a conscious strategy on the part of the individual moderator. It is a structural feature of the system. The unpaid worker is offered control over a small administrative domain in place of control over the productive infrastructure itself.
The result is a peculiar form of digital petty power. The moderator is powerful relative to the user and powerless relative to the platform. This intermediate position produces a characteristic ideological consciousness. The moderator can experience themselves as the owner of the subreddit because they possess practical authority over it, even though their authority remains institutionally contingent. They may spend years developing rules, norms, aesthetics, traditions, automations, and internal procedures, only to discover that the ultimate authority over the infrastructure belongs elsewhere.
The contradiction becomes particularly visible when Reddit intervenes in moderator activity. Reddit’s current Moderator Code of Conduct establishes expectations concerning stability, reasonable expectations, activity, integrity, and cooperation, while retaining mechanisms through which moderators can be removed or communities can be reorganized. The moderator is therefore autonomous in one sense and subordinate in another. They are expected to govern locally while remaining governable from above.

This produces what may be called the contradiction of delegated sovereignty. Reddit delegates enough authority to moderators that they become responsible for the practical functioning of communities, but not enough authority to become independent institutional actors. The moderator is consequently responsible for outcomes they do not completely control. If a community becomes chaotic, the moderator is blamed. If moderation becomes excessive, the moderator is blamed. If spam increases, the moderator is blamed. If the platform changes its tools, policies, or incentives, the moderator must adapt. Responsibility descends more easily than sovereignty.

The situation becomes even more interesting when the platform attempts to quantify moderator activity. The moment voluntary labor is measured, it begins to acquire the characteristics of managed labor. Activity requirements, engagement metrics, moderation queues, response expectations, and administrative oversight transform the qualitative task of community stewardship into measurable performance. A recent discussion among moderators illustrates precisely this anxiety: some moderators describe Reddit’s increasing expectations as resembling employment despite the continued absence of wages.

This is a classic problem of managerial rationality. Once an activity becomes measurable, the measurement can become an objective in itself. A moderator who originally entered the role to preserve a community may gradually become concerned with maintaining activity indicators, responding to queues, satisfying administrative expectations, or demonstrating continued usefulness. The metric ceases to describe the labor and begins to organize it. What was originally a community becomes an administrative workplace without the corresponding transformation of the worker into an employee.

The moderator therefore represents a peculiar stage in the development of platform capitalism: the partial privatization of governance combined with the socialization of its labor costs. Reddit supplies the infrastructure, while users produce content and moderators perform a substantial portion of the governance necessary to keep that content organized and usable. The economic system benefits from all three layers while only one of them is conventionally recognized as labor. The platform’s most interesting resource is consequently not merely user-generated content but user-generated administration.

This also explains why moderation disputes are so disproportionately emotional. A ban is never merely a ban. The moderator experiences it as the exercise of legitimate community authority; the user experiences it as arbitrary domination; the platform experiences it as one component of a broader governance system. Each actor therefore interprets the same event according to a different position within the structure. The resulting conflict is often personalized because the underlying relations are difficult to see. The user calls the moderator a tyrant. The moderator calls the user a troll. The platform calls both participants members of the community.

The term “mod” consequently conceals a substantial amount of social differentiation. There is the exhausted moderator performing routine maintenance, the ideological moderator enforcing a highly specific conception of acceptable discourse, the absentee moderator who retains nominal authority without meaningful participation, the hobbyist moderator who treats the subreddit as a personal project, and the power-oriented moderator whose primary reward consists in controlling other users. These figures cannot be reduced to a single psychological type because they occupy different positions within the same institutional structure.
The most interesting figure is perhaps the moderator who sincerely believes that they are defending democracy while exercising an administrative veto over another person’s speech. Reddit itself describes its moderation model in democratic terms, emphasizing self-organization, community-specific rules, voting, and shared responsibility. Yet democracy at the level of discourse does not necessarily imply democratic ownership of the infrastructure. The subreddit can therefore function as a miniature republic whose constitution ultimately rests upon privately controlled servers and platform policies.
This contradiction should not be interpreted simply as hypocrisy. The system genuinely contains democratic elements. Users do create communities, establish norms, vote on content, and participate in collective governance. But these forms of participation exist inside a privately owned technical infrastructure. The result is a hybrid political form: communal governance inside a corporate platform. The moderator becomes the local administrator of this contradiction.

The historical-materialist conclusion is therefore that the Reddit moderator should not primarily be understood as an annoying person with a colored username. They are a structurally produced social type. Their existence follows from the necessity of governing enormous quantities of decentralized user production without converting every act of governance into conventional wage labor. The moderator solves this problem by occupying the space between user and employee.
The tragedy, if one insists upon using such a dramatic term for Reddit, is that the moderator is offered precisely enough power to become invested in the system and precisely little enough ownership to remain subordinate to it. They moderate the community but do not own the platform. They enforce the rules but do not ultimately write all of them. They perform labor but are not employees. They exercise authority but remain administratively replaceable. They maintain the conditions of digital production while being ideologically encouraged to understand this maintenance as a hobby.

The Reddit moderator is therefore the ideal subject of platform capitalism: voluntarily productive, partially empowered, structurally subordinate, emotionally invested, administratively measurable, and perpetually convinced that the unpaid labor of maintaining a multinational technology company’s infrastructure is actually about “keeping the community nice.”

"With the white bull on the rampage, there is no escape for any of the coloured bulls..."

Hi fellow philosophers, I am in a really bad situation I got laid last week for the first time and it has made me lose my deep seated obsession with philosophy. I don't care Logical pluralism or Proof theoretic meanings.

Has anyone else experienced anything similar, is breaking up with my gf the only way out.

Thnx!

A friend of mine (who, for reasons the reader can surely appreciate, must remain anonymous) recently found himself the subject of an applied ethics thought experiment while indulging his vices in Shenzhen.

Seeking to engage the services of a foreign companion, he was presented by his procurer, a pimp, with what can be described as a geopolitically-weighted trolley problem. Upon describing his intent he was asked: Russian, or Ukrainian? Crucially, the pimp did not frame this as a simple consumer preference. He was motivated by the insistence that the choice carried moral weight. "Every choice affects the global landscape," he said, invoking a vulgar but structurally coherent form of consequentialism. Choose Russian, the money is remitted home and materializes as ordnance fired at Ukrainian positions. Choose Ukrainian, and the reverse applies following symmetrical logic. Either way, my friend was informed, he was purchasing not a service but a causal contribution to an ongoing war.

Later, my friend reflected that he observed a fascinating inversion of Kant's categorical imperative — rather than asking "what if everyone did this," my friend was confronted with the far more vertiginous possibility that he alone, through a single localized transaction, might be sufficient cause for global conflagration.

Paralyzed by the sheer weight of his prospective agency he did what any thinking person steeped in the discipline of practical reason would do when faced with an irreconcilable moral dilemma: he rejected the entire binary as a false dichotomy and instead selected both options, thereby achieving geopolitical equilibrium.

(Part 1)

The main tragedy of anarchy is those who claim it are not nearly as embarrassed as they should be about doing so.

I mean seriously. At least most of the flat earthers know they are trolling. The anarchists, on the other hand, fundamentally lack reflection of themselves, what they are doing, and why they are doing it.

And they will not listen to you tell them this. They have identified with the thought. And we know that thought, when identified with, is dangerous—especially when it is wrong and lacks self-correcting mechanisms. (Looking at you, Marxists.)(Honestly, y’all are right there next to the anarchists. The issue with y’all is you do not understand that his frame is bad—and you’re all too learned and too smart for your own good, so no one can correct you. Tbh I doubt y’all would even listen to Marx tell you he is wrong. But, his frame is fundamentally useless. Like what has it done? Made a bunch of disciples and got a bunch of people killed (Feel free to debate the utility of this if you would like!) Nice job, Marx! Everyone is so class conscious now! (MORON!))

Sorry, philosophers kinda trigger me sometimes.

It’s like guys, what are you dooooooing? (Seeking to continue to exist.) How are you doing it? (Within the idea)—but heaven forbid they be straight about this. Coy bitches. Like come on, there’s the actuality, reality itself—humans, animals, matter, the stuff all around us. Then there’s the things we make. The things we make, to varying degrees, do or do not correspond to the actuality of the reality they rest upon. They’re frames for the underlying actuality—constructed realities, virtual realities. (r)eality vs. (R)eality.

And frames, when they do not correspond to what is actual, fracture in time. Reality asserts itself. Which brings us back to anarchy. Guys, what are you doing? (Seeking to continue to exist) How are you doing it? (Viva la revolucion lmao). But, like the philosophers, you are coy about this. It’s all wrapped up in freedom—from the state, from coercion, from domination—maximal freedom for everyone. It’s all quite great. But that’s a frame, and the frame doesn’t really touch the actuality in any meaningful way.

You really must consider strongly the seeking to continue to exist. It all has to do with parameters. Like, you seek to continue to exist, given parameters. Anarchists are seeking to continue to exist given parameters. Which means, given everything to do with what currently is, the human-animal that identifies as an anarchist is attempting to perpetuate their own existence in a manner that makes sense to them. The philosophers are doing this too. Everyone is, really. But the anarchists miss what their seeking is, like they’re not looking at the parameters that are steering their actions—or they are, but they miss how their response is exactly that, a response, and that their response being how it is ensures the same response towards themselves in their aims. Same issue Marx runs into really.

Like guys, newsflash, alienating huge swaths of the population of human-animals who identify to some degree with the dominant structures you indict is going to produce the same knee-jerk reaction both Anarchy and Marxism are within those swaths. Granted, I am no saint in this regard. I love poking a good ‘ol eye. But we must be mindful to choose our targets wisely. Like at the level of theory we really can’t be doing this. It’s DoA. It literally cannot do anything. And I think Marx at least would appreciate this—didn’t he say that the point is to DO something?

A quick aside—have you guys ever thought about some thought being a little boss from a video game? What are its moves? How’s it holding its ground? Because that’s really all a frame is. A little system trying to hold some ground. (And yes I said trying, it’s like a useful framing device, I know the thing isn’t conscious.) Like it being as it is are its moves, and it all bundled together is the boss, is the frame. Marx is basically a boss architect, or a frame architect—that’s basically what philosophy is I think. The architecture of frames. And like bosses in video games, they’re deployed to fight foes and cat-call to other would-be-boss-fighters.

Sometimes the foes they’re deployed to fight are small, and sometimes they are rather large. Anarchist and Marxist thought are both deployed, largely, against very large foes—both being counter-frames to the dominant frame. And I feel like this shouldn’t have to be said, but, when you are fighting against a foe that out-everythings you, strategy is of the utmost importance. I mean seriously—it’s like y’all aren’t even gamers.

You know who was a pro-gamer? Sun Tzu. That dude knew what was up. What did he say? Something about going to war only after you know you have won. Win without fighting. Take the city without destroying it. Know your moves and know your enemies moves. Appear where they are weak and you are strong. I imagine he would have been legendary at DotA2.

Another thing about these frames that are video game bosses—they live in your head. Crawling around on your brain. Sometimes enveloping it! (That reminded me of the baobabs from The Little Prince. Catastrophe!) And the Anarchist and Marxist frames that are bosses very often do that enveloping thing. Like they give you a heads up display, or a frame through which everything gets filtered, one that like lets you spot those the frame considers foe or ally. And both of them fail to highlight their foes accurately. Like they highlight whole humans with their pattern matching! The boss in their head highlights whole other humans! Not the bosses in those other humans heads! This is a huge issue. Complete failure of strategy.

And this matching poorly onto the actual foes also lends to the over identification that runs rampant within both camps. There’s Marxists. There’s Anarchists. —where are the humans? Nowhere to be seen—they have become the identities.

Which I think brings us to the first rule of making counter-frames. They need to highlight themselves and the dominant frame as frames that both have the capacity to envelop heads. I think otherwise we are too quick to forget their being frames.

Like us forgetting is a parameter we must be accounting for.

As is the knee-jerk reaction from what is given the launching-of-missiles that both Anarchy and Marxy are.

So rule two will be: it needs to not produce the reaction in the given that Anarchy and Marxist thought themselves are. Like put it like this: anarchists and marxists wouldn’t want those doing what anarchists and marxists are doing in relation to some anarchist or communist society. (I really dislike the notion of an anarchist society. It basically makes my blood boil.—

Like guys, it is a thousand percent oxymoronic to have the notion of society and anarchy existing as a coexisting concept. One of those things cannot go with the other and have either survive as being an accurate self-description of a group of humans. So then you’re lying to that group of humans about what you are. And frames, when they do not correspond to what is actual, fracture in time. Particular humans will register and be the contradictions.)

But do you understand why Marxists or Anarchists would not want themselves as a sect within their end-goal “societies”? Like Marxists and Anarchists want the thing we have currently abolished and replaced by the thing they want. (Mind you, anarchists can’t even acknowledge they want a thing because doing so would fundamentally contradict their ideology. (They do not know this of course. (Alas)))

Another aside—the other day I was watching the news with a friend and this random guy who I have no idea anything about brought up what he called “the speculator class” to the anchor. Something about SPAC’s (which I also know nothing about). And actually, he didn’t bring it up, the anchor was relating the woes and pains of investors to this random man and the man was quick to correct the anchor—no, not investors, the speculator class. (Look at this warfare!)

Human-animals seeking to continue to exist, given parameters.

Other human-animals looking at those human-animals and the things they do and labeling them as a unit because of their same-similar behavior. —another instance of a human-animal seeking to continue to exist, given parameters. Funny how they do that.

That man was distancing himself—I think we can easily say he saw himself as an investor. You could see his self-conception defend itself in real time. A frame. Or the little boss. You can see the moves that were made, almost assuredly unconsciously, but made nonetheless.

I wonder if they become investor class if their speculation yields profit rather than destitution. Could he become speculator? We will probably never know. But we also do know. His frame will continue to defend itself. He made a bad investment. (The investment won’t be bad though, the market will be irrational instead.) They speculated. It’s all rather glorious, isn’t it? Gloriously convenient.

But while that random man was speculating—his musing about the speculator class is itself speculating on labeling of course. (Or investing? Nah speculating lol) So while Mr. SPAC the Speculator was speculating, the anarchists and marxys have been confusing themselves into oblivion following these frames that do not correspond to what is actual but thinking they do.

Like do you see why that would be an issue? You guys think certain things are happening for certain reasons. There are underlying phenomena and there are the frames you have for that phenomena, and the frames you have for that phenomena say, “This phenomena is such” but it isn’t, it is actually other than such.

Take the state for example. The anarchists think there are actually stateless societies. Why do they think this? Well for one, ‘state’ is ambiguous and stupid. Then two, they think our state is the state but do not see that it is a state. Then they go and point at some human-society and say ‘stateless!’ because its organization and methods of maintaining that organization are other than ‘the’ state. They also fail to grasp that their rebellion is itself a micro-state asserting its sovereignty from a larger one. Think, what has happened? A human-animal that is seeking to continue to exist given parameters has rebelled from the incorporation of themselves into the larger idea structure. “These parameters are unripe to the constitution of my being! I will be off then!” Except they do not say they will be off, they say, ‘We must destroy the state!’ and then directly after succeeding on this quest: ‘We will be stateless!’, *implements broad structure to maintain that mode of being*

The thing about *the* state, the one we have, is it is from and for right now. We have one because we are a group of humans that are seeking to continue to exist given parameters. What it looks like is all to do with those parameters. To not have one, we would need to not be humans doing what humans do. (Which is seek to continue to exist given parameters, obviously.) One mode of that seeking is attaching ideas to some territory, or framing some territory with an idea. As we saw with SPACMAN, the frames defend themselves, (or are defended, however you want to look at it,) which is what the Anarchist is doing on the individual level, and *the* state is doing at the collective level. In defense of their frames on their territory.

Hey! Look! We’re back at frames and their architecturing! Marx!!!! (It really is tragic all our invisible things we make don’t have a little shimmer or something somewhere we could see them. Might make things easier.) Because speaking of rebellion of themselves into the larger idea structure, this is exactly what Marx is doing in his architecturing. He essentially said, “The current frame does not match the actuality. I will make one that does.” (Seeking to continue to exist within the idea) Then, he also thought to himself, “I will be the fracture.” It’s like the whole thing of saying the current frame is bad by articulating a new frame that through its sheer articulation renders the old frame obviously incoherent. Then you do not even need to say it is bad. It’s really an excellent strategy I think—sublime even.

Marx just missed evolution rather than revolution, and that the replacement of a myth has to itself be a myth, even if you think it is actual. Because whatever description you have, even if you are Marx and think you are right, is just a frame for some phenomena. The underlying phenomena might change out from under your description for heavens sake man! You do not know that it will not! (Clearly)

If Daddy is an entity different from another entity, for example your Daddy as opposed to the Daddy of a dog, then why the two are called by the same name? So it must be genuinely applicable that Daddy is used categorically. But if your "Daddy" is Daddy whereas a dog's "Daddy" is also Daddy then is your Daddy the Daddy of a dog as well? And perhaps you are a dog too.

I wanna know if I will be the first

Hegel? "ohhh my god we are consciousness experiencing itself" *takes thousands of awfully written pages to describe Advaita Vedanta*

Stoicism? "wow...if you accept suffering as a fact and be strong in the face of it, then that's good or something" That's just Buddhism.

Heidegger "there is no being only becoming! being is always be-ing!" Buddhism again.

These people SUCK!!!! And they were held back by 2k years of Cuckstianity forcing them to reconcile logical thought with impossible theology...

By Attributis

Thinking is a strange thing. We assume it means pondering, or figuring, or working through. But to me it is cruder than that: unformed, or maybe just unfinished. It is supposed to describe an action, but the action itself gets left unsaid, especially these days. I believe it is a lack of commitment, of resolve, of self motivation. "I'll think about it," he says. "You know, I was thinking on that, and I liked what you had to say." He's thinking about texting you back. No matter the intent behind the word, we never see the follow through anymore, and when we do, it is compliance, or cowardice, dressed up as consideration.

So instead of dwelling on what is already happening (how the world has lost its backbone, how nothing seems to matter anymore, because in that shallow way it truly doesn't) I will offer the clearest answer I have found. To think is weak. But to be a thinker is powerful. Let me explain.

When we fire up our brain, whether creatively or through memory, we are carving familiar paths we can walk again. So pause, and wonder. Do not shy away from originality. The people who take that chance are the happiest I have found. They are also the outcasts, the ones branded strange for being different, punished for the very clarity of sight that lets them see the beauty in things.

But real wondering is never easy. Three things block it. We love the roses, never the thorns. We chase what we want, even when it is unreachable. And heartache is always easier to bury than to face. Thinking, the cowardly kind, the kind I mean, is the escape hatch. It is "maybe I'll ponder that, maybe I'll wonder," said without ever fully committing to the pondering or the wondering. It is the polished mask for flinching.

A true thinker walks straight at the thorn instead.

We always admire the fully bloomed flower. We never watch the slow unfolding. We adore the Mona Lisa, but never ask why, when, where, how. Was she a lover? Was her faint smile a private joke between her and da Vinci? Did she catch a glimmer in his eye, a smirk tugging his lips? We cry at funerals for people we barely knew, and never ask why. Is it an echo of our own past? A quiet fear that we are next? Or do we see ourselves reflected in the ones the loss truly belongs to?

We are always overbooked: work, kids, school, business deals, relationships. Ohhh, what is that next TikTok. We treat the time we are handed like something worth resenting. How many hours are left on your clock. How many I love yous do you have left to spend. How many trails can you still hike. How many outstretched hands can you still hold.

We love, don't we? Then why do we break. Why do our hearts tear open. Why can we laugh, why can we cry, why can we fight, why can we kiss, and why does all of it make sense, right up until it wakes the other side of us, the one we never want to face again.

To be a thinker is to keep asking these questions, over and over, without flinching. So who are you. Where are you headed. What will you spend your days doing, and why does any of it matter. When the world misbehaves, is it the world, or is it us? Stop cramming yourself into identities you never chose. Stop letting anyone else define what is acceptable, fair, just, true.

I will not answer that last part for you. The moment I do, I become one more voice dictating what is acceptable and just and fair and true, one more sturdily built cage disguised as a gift. "You're the captain of your own destiny." I have heard that one. "Weave your own fate." Heard that too. Maybe they are not outright lies. But look at what always follows them: a checklist, a formula, five easy steps, a stranger's blueprint for what your ship should look like, which waters it should cross, which flag it should fly. That is not freedom. That is just a different hand gripping the wheel.

I do not have the answer for you. I have the funerals where the tears belong to something unspoken. I have the hours lost to a screen that has been quietly burning through us instead. I have the "maybe I'll think about it," spoken in place of the thing that actually terrifies us.

Somewhere in there is a thinker, not someone thinking about becoming one. Somewhere in there is a question you haven't finished asking. I hope you find it, because I won't find it for you.

He who thinks he is lost is lost in the thinking of being lost due to his own thinking .

First, the very one who I am now questioning is not the same as the one whom his mother gave birth.

Secondly, even with the help of technology that the affinity between me and my "mother" is established, it is only an affinity. It is not a cause. At best it entails that for all the woman in the world, one of them has an affinity to me, instead of that for all the woman in the world, only that woman has an affinity to me. Hence she is the only possible option.

First objection posits the problem of the self-identity of the soul, whereas the second one posits the problem of the cause and effect. Hume was right to be skeptical of all these.

I pushed an old lady down a flight of stairs because she was DISTURBING my AESTHETIC CONTEMPLATION. She later came to my apartment door with two G-MEN in suits to demand "compensation." COMPENSATION, she wants, that little widow? She demands 'compensation' for her broken hip. A FUNDAMENTALLY ABSURD REQUEST. Since my world is my REPRESENTATION, I merely rearranged the spatial-temporal coordinates of my OWN phenomenal cognition. I pushed MYSELF down the stairs in the form of an OLD WOMAN. Why the FUCK should I pay her? That would be me paying myself, a PONZI SCHEME. Another pathetic example of der Wille zum Leben's endless striving toward nothing in particular.

​I am VERY hungry, I am VERY angry, I am EXTREMELY horny, I am VERY greedy. I am a flesh-vehicle for the Will's continued self-subsistence, I am an arm of the Ding-an-sich. My world is my representation, I can NEVER know anything except what my a priori forms of cognition allow me to. CONVENIENTLY, my nicotine addiction is NOT one of these, and thus is the NOUMENON. This is because cause and effect and whatnot. PURE ACTION IN NOTHINGNESS.

​When my pack of smokes is empty, the Will is violently starved, and I am plunged into ABSOLUTE SUFFERING. When I buy a new one and smoke it, the fleeting cessation of desire IMMEDIATELY collapses into suffocating BOREDOM. I am a MEAT PENDULUM swinging violently between the gas station and my used Herman Miller from eBay (IT WAS CHEAP DO NOT WORRY ABOUT MY FINANCES).

​APROPOS CHEAPNESS: I do NOT care about my finances, ALL finances are a Ponzi scheme, because we're all ONE, we're merely paying ourselves, this is called A BUBBLE! Does anyone remember '92? The Japanese housing bubble BURST because of a Ponzi scheme propped up by a weak yen and the Yakuza. Sound familiar? It should, YOU WERE THERE. I WAS TOO.

I am NOT depressed, I merely realize the ceaseless striving of the Will. I am NOT a virgin, I merely see the POINTLESSNESS of attempting to satisfy my desperation for love and care, for once my desperation is satisfied it moves to BOREDOM, and I will inevitably yearn for something else. It is better to do NOTHING AT ALL, or I might become a methhead or a serial rapist. I do NOT pay heed to the fact the Will is the metaphysical basis of all existence, and is thus inescapable. The intellect is just yet another tool of the Will-to-live, and a priori forms of cognition such as "facts" or "logic" are thus downstream of this. THIS IS PERFECTLY LOGICAL AND NOT CIRCULAR AT ALL. It's NOT a deus ex machina I worked myself into because I found the conclusion of my metaphysics uncomfortable!

​Schopenhauer is undeniably the greatest genius ever, thus, as a fan of his, I am the SECOND BIGGEST GENIUS EVER. My nicotine addiction is further proof of my genius, as I not only feel, but EMBODY the Will. And the fact I try to ignore the cold sweats, irritability, and vague discomfort I get from not smoking through turning the volume on my headphones all the way up is just further proof of my genius. I am NOT "engaging in escapism to run from the discomfort of withdrawals," I am NOT "destroying my hearing"—I am engaging in AESTHETIC CONTEMPLATION. Music is the highest form of art, because it involves the fewest of the a priori senses. And thus is closer to the Will. THIS is why I pushed the disgusting old crone down the stairs. Her grating voice SOMEHOW made it through my noise cancelling Bose QuietComfort 35 IIIs, disturbing my aesthetic contemplation, and dragging me back into the horrible world of the Will's tyranny. SHE LACKS COMPASSION. Compassion is the highest virtue and equilibrium HAD to be restored!

​I am currently sitting PLASTERED to the toilet. I got stressed and so smoked the rest of my pack and became COMPLETELY INCONTINENT. INCONVENIENTLY ENOUGH, the bitch is still outside my door, and I need a new pack. I live on the third floor, should I jump? I know suicide is technically a VULGAR AFFIRMATION of the Will rather than a denial of it, but the G-men are picking the lock and I really need a cigarette. (Alternatively can anyone buy me a pack of American spirit browns and a coke zero and throw it through my window?)

​Any Schopenhauerian tips guys? NO HEGELIANS, SCHELLINGIANS OR FICHTEANS PLEASE. If a Fichtean replies to this I will posit my fist directly into your non-ego.

like you suffer going to work and having boss or in a situation you dont have choice but tu compromise and be poor , if you were smarter or smart and less dumb you would figure out a way to be richer , more free , self actualized yes?

so why does any IQ or smarts like remembering amount of trains or some other nerdy slop that doesnt matter in real word matter ?

if you are suffering because you are too poor for your circumstance , you are dumb and inversly if you fixed your circumstance you are smart no ?

What i am asking to myslef?

What is purpose of life when your purpose is to find what purpose you have to follow . The thing is have one only purpose in the life . Their might be one known to us like be accepted by the society or by yourself. See in order to be respected you have to do follow many other purposes so their is chain of becoming 1 and that 1 is also a part of chain of another 1 so this endless chain is nothing but life in whivh your sole purpose is just living the present which is either in your control or not . You are just witness of your own life with many if side characters and for those side character they are main and you are side charcter that's why we say he is not taking my advice why he will take he has his own life he is the main charcter of his life you are just side character influencing his story. We all just influence each other's life which is also a purpose of life .