Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Philosophy and inceldom

What do you think about philosophy?

  • Pompous bullshit written by dead virgins to cope

    Votes: 1 4.5%
  • A very interesting intellectual field that can help you become wiser

    Votes: 10 45.5%
  • Halfway between the two

    Votes: 11 50.0%

  • Total voters
    22
Fontaine

Fontaine

Overlord
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Posts
5,417
At the risk of sounding pompous, I think incels could benefit a lot from philosophy, and I'm under the impression that few here are interested in it. Philosophy doesn't solve inceldom per se, but it can help you reach the correct attitude towards it.

I'm pretty well-educated in philosophy. Ask me anything you want about the matter. Also, a poll.
 
Is Vapourwave a topic in Philosophy?
 
philosophy won’t get us women
it’s a cope
the solution is something much more sinister
 
very interesting. After reading the other post about the philosophy blackpill it seems like a lot of incels think its some kind of jewish invention and cope
 
I would like you to start off explaining the reasons why Incel relates to Philosophy in your view?
Philosophy is also large, what is philosophy for you?

Then we could potentially get into the more juicy stuff.
 
On a serious note the guy who founded the philosophical teachings of Nihilism was a NEET who LDARed in a basket in Greece, lived off scraps and was rather political.
 
Is Vapourwave a topic in Philosophy?
Could be.
philosophy won’t get us women
it’s a cope
the solution is something much more sinister
True, it can't get you women. However, it can help you grow in all kinds of ways, making you happier and indirectly more likely to get women down the line.
I would like you to start off explaining the reasons why Incel relates to Philosophy in your view?
Philosophy is also large, what is philosophy for you?

Then we could potentially get into the more juicy stuff.
Philosophy is essentially about looking past appearances, looking past the surface, to see situations under a new light. (E.g. Plato's cave allegory). Inceldom is lived as a tragedy by most males, but if viewed under another light, it's not necessarily a tragedy. Rather a challenge.
 
indirectly more likely to get women down the line.
no
it’s all about looks
we can never be happy, we can only cope with falsely being happy
as soon as we are reminded of the fact that we are celibate,
we become depressed again
 
no
it’s all about looks
we can never be happy, we can only cope with falsely being happy
as soon as we are reminded of the fact that we are celibate,
we become depressed again
Philosophy, per se, never denied that looks matter. Plato was a eugenicist, for instance!

Can you be happy without sex and women? I do believe you can approach happiness, yes. Though it's very hard in practice to detach your male ego from your reflection in women's eyes.
 
To me, philosophy was a substitute for science, it has no other function but to give the best speculative answers about what we don't know, but now that science can answer almost every question philosophy has nothing left to answer, it is becoming extinguish. Most of the great philosophers of the time had a poor scientific understanding of the world, therefore, their speculative answer where ill-informed and wrong to many regards. Philosophy is not worth to put your time looking into imo, most of it is outdated.
 
To me, philosophy was a substitute for science, it has no other function but to give the best speculative answers about what we don't know, but now that science can answer almost every question philosophy has nothing left to answer, it is becoming extinguish. Most of the great philosophers of the time had a poor scientific understanding of the world, therefore, their speculative answer where ill-informed and wrong to many regards. Philosophy is not worth to put your time looking into imo, most of it is outdated.
That's historically false. Science didn't "replace" philosophy for the simple reason that science is philosophy. To be more precise, natural philosophy.
 
Can you be happy without sex and women? I do believe you can approach happiness, yes. Though it's very hard in practice to detach your male ego from your reflection in women's eyes.
That's a good argument when you have a lot of women orbiting around you.
Though, when you're Incel and want very much something you can't get, it mostly have the contrary effect. You punish yourself and forbid mentally things to become true via per ex., philosophy.
 
That's historically false. Science didn't "replace" philosophy for the simple reason that science is philosophy. To be more precise, natural philosophy.

Science is vastly different than philosophy through is scientific methodology.

Science does not speculate like philosophy does about the nature of reality, it should only tell you scientific truths which are deemed truths because the results of their scientific studies through which they came to their conclusions are replicable.

This isn't what Platon and other philosophers did, hence why their conclusions were often false.
 
Last edited:
Science is vastly different than philosophy through is scientific methodology.

Science does not speculate like philosophy does, it should only tell you scientific truths which are deemed truths because the results of their scientific studies through which they came to their conclusions are replicable.
You're spouting positivism, a long-time discredited theory of science. In reality, science routinely speculates just as much as philosophy. What are modern physics if not abstract speculations interspersed with a handful of facts?
 
I doubt it. I wish I had never opened this box of pandora. :feelscry:

There is some classic cathartic experience going on in myself when I read your posts though, because of my inner rollercoaster. It often puts my paranoia somewhat back in place and my life into perspective.

Funnily enough I had a question about this exact topic, how you cope with certain parts of your worldview, earlier this morning, but I didn't dare to ask and now I forgot the thread and I am to tired anyway. It sometimes sounds like big cope to me, I think I get what you are mostly saying but, well I get no real piece od mind out of it.

Philosophy doesn't solve inceldom per se, but it can help you reach the correct attitude towards it.

I'm pretty well-educated in philosophy. Ask me anything you want about the matter. Also, a poll.

Maybe you can outline some broad concept or give us some keywords for further research?
 
You're spouting positivism, a long-time discredited theory of science. In reality, science routinely speculates just as much as philosophy. What are modern physics if not abstract speculations interspersed with a handful of facts?

Science has to be speculative when we ask questions which we don't know the answer, basically they are doing philosophy in order to bridge gaps in understanding. But most of what science says is through scientific methodology while most of Philosophy says is speculative. Like answering moral questions.
 
Last edited:
So we were having some discussions on the philosophical/theoretical background of the blackpill in some other thread, in terms of it's implications to politics. Although it was a long discussion, I am just trying to summarize in couple of lines:

1. Let's consider "looks" as a currency
2. Those who have it are capitalizing on the sexual market.
3. So looks is a capital, therefore chads are bourgeoisies
4. More appropriately, their capital is analogous to feudal monarchy, since they inherit looks from their parents, they are not building their own fortune.
4. And we are the "have nots", the proletariats.
5. ER is one of the earliest rebels who took weapon to fight against this status quo, bolshevik.
6. Everything fits quite well with this analogy and narrative, but how do you explain blackpill with dialectic materialism?
 
Funnily enough I had a question about this exact topic, how you cope with certain parts of your worldview, earlier this morning, but I didn't dare to ask and now I forgot the thread and I am to tired anyway. It sometimes sounds like big cope to me, I think I get what you are mostly saying but, well I get no real piece od mind out of it.
Well I can't help you see clearer in my game if you aren't more precise.
Maybe you can outline some broad concept or give us some keywords for further research?
A good gateway drug to philosophy is probably stoicism. Though stoicism has flaws*, and famous stoics were hypocrites to an extent, it contains many of the principles that were retained by later philosophies and Christian morals: accept that you can't fully control reality, accept that reality will shit on you no matter what you do, and tame your primitive emotions/impulses.

* Mostly a lack of true transcendent belief to wrap it up, and an unrealistic excess in asceticism.
Science has to be speculative when we ask questions which we don't know the answer, basically they are doing philosophy in order to bridge gaps in understanding. But most of what science says is through scientific methodology while most of Philosophy says is speculative. Like answering moral questions.
Though the epistemological rigor of philosophy is often inferior to science's... You'd be surprised how many scientific publications are supported by thin air, bias and inductions.
So we were having some discussions on the philosophical/theoretical background of the blackpill in some other thread, in terms of it's implications to politics. Although it was a long discussion, I am just trying to summarize in couple of lines:

1. Let's consider "looks" as a currency
2. Those who have it are capitalizing on the sexual market.
3. So looks is a capital, therefore chads are bourgeoisies
4. More appropriately, their capital is analogous to feudal monarchy, since they inherit looks from their parents, they are not building their own fortune.
4. And we are the "have nots", the proletariats.
5. ER is one of the earliest rebels who took weapon to fight against this status quo, bolshevik.
6. Everything fits quite well with this analogy and narrative, but how do you explain blackpill with dialectic materialism?
I agree with you that in the 21st century, Marxist philosophy should focus on looks and health as much as it focuses on wealth.
 
Last edited:
Though the epistemological rigor of philosophy is often inferior to science's... You'd be surprised how many scientific publications are supported by thin air, bias and inductions.

Agree, like JB Peterson quoting Carl Jung to support his claims with such conviction as if Jung was a source of pure objective truths because he is fucking Carl Jung.
 
Agree, like JB Peterson quoting Carl Jung to support his claims as if Jung was a source of pure objective truths because he is fucking Carl Jung.
Yeah. Basically outside of "hard sciences" like math, physics and chemistry, it's basically opinion, with more or less support from objective reality. The field of psychology is notorious for relying too much on opinions from "prestigious" figures like Jung, Freud and Erickson, whose only true merit was being first-movers in a new field.
 
Yeah. Basically outside of "hard sciences" like math, physics and chemistry, it's basically opinion, with more or less support from objective reality. The field of psychology is notorious for relying too much on opinions from "prestigious" figures like Jung, Freud and Erickson, whose only true merit was being first-movers in a new field.

Evolutionary psychology is starting to make it objective like other sciences, but we are still early in the process. But that's why I am really into EP, and I would read a 50th book on EP over Socrates explaining his conception of what lead to the experience of happiness.
 
Evolutionary psychology is starting to make it objective like other sciences, but we are still early in the process. But that's why I am really into EP, and I would read a 50th book on EP over Socrates explaining his conception of what lead to the experience of happiness.
Problem is, EP revolves on inductions, BroScience and "could-be" scenarios a tad too much for being taken completely seriously. It's the best framework we have now, but its epistemology is pretty bad too.
 
Just intellectual curiosity for high IQ people, which will make you even more miserable if you are not deluding yourself. So option 2 as becoming wiser usually means more suffering.
 
Problem is, EP revolves on inductions, BroScience and "could-be" scenarios a tad too much for being taken completely seriously. It's the best framework we have now, but its epistemology is pretty bad too.

The main problems I see is that we are mainly fit to live in an ancestral environment of hunter-gatherer which were somewhat nomadic, but that civilization doesn't exist anymore, we have a very poor archeological record of that time particularly in regard to our social behaviors. Also, it is hard to isolate the different psychological variables in scientific studies. This field of science is prone to mistakes, but the Darwinian premise of his framework seems to hold up very well since the theory has been proved to be factually right from a biological standpoint time and time again.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top