yesterday I took a screenshot of the title of a video, it was from an idiot who had no training and apparently he said hikikomori even though he was working, he was a white bluepill.....
And this quote is partially right.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds. Things either are what they appear to be; or they neither are, nor appear to be; or they are, and do not appear to be; or they are not, and yet appear to be. Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. - Epictetus.
backward philosophy. If you like it, that's fine, I don't like it. Science cannot be refuted with assumptions. You could say that's correct, but only if we were all idiots. Because appearance matters.
You're kinda missing the point here. Epictetus is just pointing out that things aren't always as they seem, and being wise means figuring out what's real versus what's just an appearance.
For example, take the way the sun appears to move across the sky. For thousands of years, people thought the sun revolved around the Earth because that's how it appeared. It took a lot of questioning and new ways of thinking (hello, Copernicus and Galileo) to figure out that it's actually the Earth that's spinning. The appearance was misleading, and only by digging deeper did we find the truth. Or think about the early days of medicine. People used to believe in bloodletting to cure diseases because it seemed like getting rid of 'bad blood' would help. But science later showed us that it was more harmful than helpful. Again, appearances can be deceiving, and it’s the job of both philosophy and science to look beyond them.
Being wise isn't about ignoring appearances; it's about knowing when they can deceive us, and lookism, essentially, determine what is known in psychology as "halo effect": the appearance of attractiveness is not essentially good and the appearance of ugliness is not essentially bad. And the bottom line is not whether or not people base their judgment on the basis of physical appearance, but essentially, determine what the outcome of appearances is.
This is not a denial of the blackpill, but its overcoming the simple concept of "everything I see is what it is".
Last edited:
all women are idiots (wet)
That's why I said it's retrograde, it's retrograde.
The concept of the word itself is in the word itself when I mentioned it.
We are not raising moral questions about appearance, we are discussing its importance and how it IS important.
Philosophy is useless, my friend, I'm a philosophy professor, there's no point shooting in the dark on the other side and thinking no one will know.
this literature as an example is even further behind the path of this context.
We are not discussing lookismaxing or any nonsense, we are discussing biological factors themselves as the cause.
How critical thinking can be retrograde?
The concept of apperances is that things are what they appear to be. And this is wrong.
This is not about moral questions, this is defining what is clearly objective: appearances are not always what they appear to be, and in its importance, we find out that it also affects us, rational animals, because it determines the halo and the horn effect, both bias.
Philosophy is useless, the blackpill is useless, and acknowledging evolutionary mechanics is useless. Once you get the knowledge, your material conditions are the same, they do not change, unless you decide to take actions on this knowledge you have discovered, but, by itself discussing biological factors is just pure philosophical engagement: reaching conclusions do not offer any utility, at all.
Again, the debate here isn't about appearance not being deceptive, it's about IT MATTERING. Point.
Your commented thought is retrograde, because I didn't say that appearance doesn't deceive, I said that it matters.
Last edited:
Yes, but I don't want any finality in what I discover, I'm just pointing out the defect of being a denialist on this subject.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
