1) When I look at the average normie, I can't help but think that we lead completely different lives; even among my uni peers, I can't help but think that the point of divergence was so far back that now I'm simply not human, in a sense.
These people enjoy activities that I don't; engage in relationships with the other sex, any kind of relationship, while I don't; seem content with their lives, while I'm not.
Their gate, mannerisms and way of speaking is completely different from mine too.
When you're inside a system you can't really discern much. However, when you start exiting that system suddenly you can notice many things. When I compare myself to normies, it is clear that we are pretty much polar opposites in everything.
2) Sexhavers are just the majority of people in the end, and we are the odd ones out, statistically. This is a fact. However, I have no idea what to do with this fact.
To claim superiority merely based on this would be inexact. I don't think I am superior to them. If anything, objectively speaking I am somewhat inferior, given the fact I missed pretty much all developmental milestones and I am likely permanently stunted as a result. Is this not inferiority?
Sure, I may not subscribe to their viewpoint in many ways, but how does this make me superior exactly?
3) Normies are victim of herd mentality and need to be guided by their shepherds.
But I also think that this sort of phenomenon is bound to happen in any group. People will always follow those who are most known, or the oldest members of the group, and whatnot. I think we aren't exempt from this either. Reputation is an essential social currency.
Be it post count, join date, or being known through high-iq high-effort posts, a hierarchy will form. I just wish that this wasn't the case. We're already at the bottom of the social hierarchy, establishing one amongst ourselves is just more brutal. Although maybe Peterson had a point in stating that hierarchies are inevitable in social living beings.
4) The fact of the matter is, we are incels because we fit a definition. Or at least, that's what we self-report. How hard is it to make up a story to get admitted into the forum, really? I don't think I'm wrong when stating that too many times before that sort of trust that the forum members are actually who they say they are has been broken. It's inevitable when the only form of discrimination is self-reporting, I guess, but over time the cracks in a person's self report start to show.
Still, I have also pondered regarding the definition of incel that this site goes by. Although pragmatically a definition is most definitely necessary, I wonder how accurate it is. For instance, couldn't those in dead bedrooms also fit the criteria for inceldom? Well, besides the fact that they've had sex, by definition there is nothing romantic going on in a dead bedroom relationship.
Expanding the scope, I have seen on this forum the thesis that romance and love are concepts that don't exist as intended by some of us (me included): women are only attracted to looks, and do not harbor any feeling of love whatsoever, towards partners or even their own children. "Romance" is merely a genre of fiction, basically. If that was the case, then isn't it redundant to state that we have never experienced romance? More than that, isn't it just a non-criterion for inceldom?
Perhaps I'm missing some basic pieces, and if so, well, this was a waste of time. Limiting to sex might solve this *apparent* issue. Ergo, once you lose your virginity, you're just fundamentally different from an incel. But even so, escortcels? Is this thought inevitably subject to multiple interpretations?
5) How can one claim that the universe is deterministic? Or, on the contrary, that free will exists? When I think about it, I think it comes back to Munchhausen's Trilemma: any proof has only 3 modes of completion: infinite regression, circular reasoning, or arbitrary cutoff point.
In an older post of mine I bluntly stated that free will does not exist and it's merely a tool used by the shepherds of society, but it is strictly incorrect to assert that. I have no way of proving the existence or the absence of free will, for I am from within the universe, and I would have to use either free will to prove its own existence, or determinism to prove its own existence, this incurring in circular reasoning. However much it could be a "correct" way to end a proof, it is still fundamentally just an unjustified assertion, an axiom of sorts, stated and assumed to be true.
But I have not attained any knowledge in this manner. What I did was state something. Is it true?
I have come to the answer that we just may never know. Any religion has a set of axioms from which it develops (dogmas); any science has a set of axioms from which it develops; any theory has axioms, some of the most fundamental being the existence of people and of the world outside of one's perception. We can never escape indemonstrable propositions of which the truth value is unknown and can never be known.
I had been pondering regarding Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems too. Although strictly mathematical, I can't help but wonder if they can be generalized to reality and perception. There are just some things that we cannot know.
Yet, this is just my perception in the end. It doesn't mean it's true. There is no intrinsic way to check for its truth or not. In a sense, it doesn't really matter if, outside our perception, those are true or not. We can never grasp their truth value, and this leads me to believe that there is no inherent truth regarding how one should conduct oneself. Good, bad, responsibility, punishment, atonement... Don't they all stem from free will? What do they look like in a deterministic universe? Does it matter if objective good and objective bad exist at all, meaning, would anything meaningfully change?
If such concepts are independent of free will and determinism, then there isn't really a problem. But if they depend on free will, then isn't it as if we all assume free will exists and then base morality off of that?
Probably seems incoherent tbh.
6) On that note, perhaps the most coherent way of living is to act in spite of everything.
I have been thinking about it for pfft I don't know years at this point, but if neither determinism nor free will are demonstrable, then how should a person live? I'm aware of the problem of is-ought derivation... But at the same time, it is an inescapable question. Is purpose self-appointed or not? Do we even think outside of predetermined paths?
But what if we just ditch all this and make a wager with Pascal? 2x2 table, rows "I act, I don't act", columns "Free Will, Determinism". Doesn't it follow that if I don't act while Free Will exists, then I have basically wasted an opportunity?
I don't remember when I first thought of this argument but it does seem to be a pretty shaky one. I am basically assuming I can decide to act without conditions, which in turn assumes free will.
But I can't even cop out and state that the most coherent way to live is to simply follow instincts, because that would entail an unconditioned choice, hence free will.
7) To end, perhaps discussion regarding human nature is inherently flawed and bears little fruits. As I understand it, it moves through a series of observations of the present, and tries to attribute certain observed phenomena to past humans, explaining in terms of evolution, mutations, etc. I wonder if this approach is scientific at all. It does seem that such assertions would be unprovable since, well, we have no way to exactly pinpoint when, why and how these purported mechanisms occurred. However, rather than being devoid of any value, maybe it's a good heuristic still. At least, my experience can help me.
It is also a qualm of mine regarding psychiatry. The foundations of it seem to me purely dogmatic; the way it is talked about in manuals s.a. the DSM is very unscientific, with constant circular reasoning and vagueness; the psychiatrists administer medication based on faulty and sloppy research. Yet, it's regarded as a science for some reason.
I'd like to know your perspective on these things if you care about it enough to humour my selfish desires.
These people enjoy activities that I don't; engage in relationships with the other sex, any kind of relationship, while I don't; seem content with their lives, while I'm not.
Their gate, mannerisms and way of speaking is completely different from mine too.
When you're inside a system you can't really discern much. However, when you start exiting that system suddenly you can notice many things. When I compare myself to normies, it is clear that we are pretty much polar opposites in everything.
2) Sexhavers are just the majority of people in the end, and we are the odd ones out, statistically. This is a fact. However, I have no idea what to do with this fact.
To claim superiority merely based on this would be inexact. I don't think I am superior to them. If anything, objectively speaking I am somewhat inferior, given the fact I missed pretty much all developmental milestones and I am likely permanently stunted as a result. Is this not inferiority?
Sure, I may not subscribe to their viewpoint in many ways, but how does this make me superior exactly?
3) Normies are victim of herd mentality and need to be guided by their shepherds.
But I also think that this sort of phenomenon is bound to happen in any group. People will always follow those who are most known, or the oldest members of the group, and whatnot. I think we aren't exempt from this either. Reputation is an essential social currency.
Be it post count, join date, or being known through high-iq high-effort posts, a hierarchy will form. I just wish that this wasn't the case. We're already at the bottom of the social hierarchy, establishing one amongst ourselves is just more brutal. Although maybe Peterson had a point in stating that hierarchies are inevitable in social living beings.
4) The fact of the matter is, we are incels because we fit a definition. Or at least, that's what we self-report. How hard is it to make up a story to get admitted into the forum, really? I don't think I'm wrong when stating that too many times before that sort of trust that the forum members are actually who they say they are has been broken. It's inevitable when the only form of discrimination is self-reporting, I guess, but over time the cracks in a person's self report start to show.
Still, I have also pondered regarding the definition of incel that this site goes by. Although pragmatically a definition is most definitely necessary, I wonder how accurate it is. For instance, couldn't those in dead bedrooms also fit the criteria for inceldom? Well, besides the fact that they've had sex, by definition there is nothing romantic going on in a dead bedroom relationship.
Expanding the scope, I have seen on this forum the thesis that romance and love are concepts that don't exist as intended by some of us (me included): women are only attracted to looks, and do not harbor any feeling of love whatsoever, towards partners or even their own children. "Romance" is merely a genre of fiction, basically. If that was the case, then isn't it redundant to state that we have never experienced romance? More than that, isn't it just a non-criterion for inceldom?
Perhaps I'm missing some basic pieces, and if so, well, this was a waste of time. Limiting to sex might solve this *apparent* issue. Ergo, once you lose your virginity, you're just fundamentally different from an incel. But even so, escortcels? Is this thought inevitably subject to multiple interpretations?
5) How can one claim that the universe is deterministic? Or, on the contrary, that free will exists? When I think about it, I think it comes back to Munchhausen's Trilemma: any proof has only 3 modes of completion: infinite regression, circular reasoning, or arbitrary cutoff point.
In an older post of mine I bluntly stated that free will does not exist and it's merely a tool used by the shepherds of society, but it is strictly incorrect to assert that. I have no way of proving the existence or the absence of free will, for I am from within the universe, and I would have to use either free will to prove its own existence, or determinism to prove its own existence, this incurring in circular reasoning. However much it could be a "correct" way to end a proof, it is still fundamentally just an unjustified assertion, an axiom of sorts, stated and assumed to be true.
But I have not attained any knowledge in this manner. What I did was state something. Is it true?
I have come to the answer that we just may never know. Any religion has a set of axioms from which it develops (dogmas); any science has a set of axioms from which it develops; any theory has axioms, some of the most fundamental being the existence of people and of the world outside of one's perception. We can never escape indemonstrable propositions of which the truth value is unknown and can never be known.
I had been pondering regarding Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems too. Although strictly mathematical, I can't help but wonder if they can be generalized to reality and perception. There are just some things that we cannot know.
Yet, this is just my perception in the end. It doesn't mean it's true. There is no intrinsic way to check for its truth or not. In a sense, it doesn't really matter if, outside our perception, those are true or not. We can never grasp their truth value, and this leads me to believe that there is no inherent truth regarding how one should conduct oneself. Good, bad, responsibility, punishment, atonement... Don't they all stem from free will? What do they look like in a deterministic universe? Does it matter if objective good and objective bad exist at all, meaning, would anything meaningfully change?
If such concepts are independent of free will and determinism, then there isn't really a problem. But if they depend on free will, then isn't it as if we all assume free will exists and then base morality off of that?
Probably seems incoherent tbh.
6) On that note, perhaps the most coherent way of living is to act in spite of everything.
I have been thinking about it for pfft I don't know years at this point, but if neither determinism nor free will are demonstrable, then how should a person live? I'm aware of the problem of is-ought derivation... But at the same time, it is an inescapable question. Is purpose self-appointed or not? Do we even think outside of predetermined paths?
But what if we just ditch all this and make a wager with Pascal? 2x2 table, rows "I act, I don't act", columns "Free Will, Determinism". Doesn't it follow that if I don't act while Free Will exists, then I have basically wasted an opportunity?
I don't remember when I first thought of this argument but it does seem to be a pretty shaky one. I am basically assuming I can decide to act without conditions, which in turn assumes free will.
But I can't even cop out and state that the most coherent way to live is to simply follow instincts, because that would entail an unconditioned choice, hence free will.
7) To end, perhaps discussion regarding human nature is inherently flawed and bears little fruits. As I understand it, it moves through a series of observations of the present, and tries to attribute certain observed phenomena to past humans, explaining in terms of evolution, mutations, etc. I wonder if this approach is scientific at all. It does seem that such assertions would be unprovable since, well, we have no way to exactly pinpoint when, why and how these purported mechanisms occurred. However, rather than being devoid of any value, maybe it's a good heuristic still. At least, my experience can help me.
It is also a qualm of mine regarding psychiatry. The foundations of it seem to me purely dogmatic; the way it is talked about in manuals s.a. the DSM is very unscientific, with constant circular reasoning and vagueness; the psychiatrists administer medication based on faulty and sloppy research. Yet, it's regarded as a science for some reason.
I'd like to know your perspective on these things if you care about it enough to humour my selfish desires.
@GeckoBus @The Notorious SLAV @DjentlemanDuke @The Death Devil @esdeathlover @Flagellum_Dei @Hoodpreet @Giracel @St3v3Cel @ANTAGONIST @Robocell @WastedPotential @AtrociousCitizen @cathuluelitist @EmperorCaligula @hierophant @yeetbender_ @fukurou @GigaL0ser @UndeadDeadMan
e
e
