Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Serra

[1] 2
Interzone / The ANUS' most important articles on nihilism
« on: April 28, 2012, 05:21:58 PM »
This site has been known to me since 2002 or so, but from 2008 onwards I got into the philosophical content and studied it, having some time before started a process of personal change which the content from this site help a great deal on achieving. Now I think of myself as "graduated", meaning that I don't frequent this site as much as I used to. Yet I do revisit it every once in a while, just to see what goes on.

Personally, I don't care about this forum. Every new content that's posted here tells what has been repeated ad nauseam for several years. But if the purpose of this forum is to get new people into the ideas spoused by this site, then I can surely see the point in the repetition.

There are several of these ideas with which I strongly disagree; but that is not my focus at the moment. To appreciate the good qualities, even in sworn enemies, is what distinguishes men from those who only seem so. I believed, and still do, that METAL is what this site truly excels. But its proposed solutions to many of the issues that troubles the younger amongst mankind in these unusually hard times deserve more attention than they have received so far.

Still, time is precious, and energies are limited. A young man in confused times such as these necessitates proper guidance, but much more, he needs to reflect on what he learns, so that its doing in the future can be surer. Much reading stifles reflection, thus action. So what do you really need from this site?

Throwing my two cents on this, I present to you the articles from this site which I consider essential. Everything else can be read or disposed of depending on the judgement of the individual.

Introductory article on Nihilism

How does a Nihilist live?

Further commentary on the concept of Nihilism, as defined by this site

Love and Nihilism: A Paralellism Primer

Prozak's "The First Lecture" - A brief guide to living, written by the main man behind this site
Some people will have a saying in this; many of those will believe that my list misses on much. They are welcome to their opinion, and they are also welcome to post it, as it will happen unavoidably.


Audiofile / Incubus (Florida, US)
« on: April 28, 2012, 02:09:51 PM »

The Florida death metal band, featuring Mike Browning from Morbid Angel, Nocturnus, Acheron and After Death.

Incubus - 1987 demo (192 kbps, Mediafire)
Also known as the "Engulfed in Unspeakable Horrors" tape.

Audiofile / Re: Necrovore
« on: April 27, 2012, 01:41:58 PM »

Audiofile / Re: Misfits
« on: April 24, 2012, 09:40:21 PM »

Audiofile / Re: Schulze, Klaus
« on: April 21, 2012, 03:58:17 PM »
Schulze, Klaus - Moondawn (2005 Re-release, FLAC)

Interzone / Re: Nothingness after death - As uncertain as afterlife
« on: December 23, 2011, 12:45:00 PM »
"Meaning" is an abstraction, which is why it's not inherent to the universe, although we can know for certain what is our worth as individuals, what our skills are and how can this be useful to others, and that's as close as we can get on reaching meaning for our lives. But the thing is, none of the aforementioned depend on any way on us, since our abilities are inborn. There might be a purpose, although we don't give it to ourselves.

I must insist on the fact that the "I" is the expression of our self-consciousness. When we die, the brain stops functioning for good, so there's no longer any consciousness, therefore no longer an "I". But something undoubtedly remains, since there's not such thing in the universe as an absolute annihilation. Whatever this "something" is, we don't know and we can never know, because without consciousness there's no longer the possibility of knowledge remaining, nor an existence in the sense that we conceive of it.

Live with it, suck it in, and move on. You create your own purpose, and this purpose only matters to you and people like you, and when you and these people die/crumble/cease to exist/snuff it, the universe won't give a wet fart for it. So better you work all the harder for it while you're alive to value it.

I'll say it again... we don't create our own purposes. All that defines our roles in life are innate. Our skills, our tendencies, our characters, everything. On the other hand, fate decides the course of our lives, and this goes on without us wanting it. We all have our destiny sealed since before we were even born, although we flatter ourselves in believing that we have free will for anything besides accepting what we are. It makes sense, then, to know ourselves, to know what our strenghts and our weaknesses are, and embrace the fate that was imposed on us, since only then can we be something for others (which are parts, like us, of the universe), and not just for ourselves.  

Interzone / Re: Praise Satan -|-
« on: December 19, 2011, 10:51:26 AM »
I, as a good Nietzschean, am inclined to find good/evil to be bullshit categories. They are not found in nature. Yet it is clear that some things are stupid, and others sociopathic. The worst are the sociopathic taking advantage of the collective stupidity of humanity order to be selfish. These seem to resemble the "evil" things in nature: parasites, disease, cancers...

Perhaps evil does exist.

You contradicted yourself there bigtime, but this happens when you start supporting Nietzschean moral relativism and then shift to healthy common sense. Of course good and evil exist, and just because they dont in objetive nature does not mean the contrary. They exist for every moral being that exists and is part of a moral sphere that runs in parallel with the natural world, even though both are of such a different nature that they sometimes collide with each other. All Nietzsche did was denying the existence of this moral sphere and support his claim with sophisms, something akin to deny the existence of the sun by placing your thumb in front of it.

Interzone / Re: Nothingness after death - As uncertain as afterlife
« on: December 19, 2011, 10:36:24 AM »
Your original supposition that absolute nothingness after death is impossible since there must always be something according to physical laws is correct, yet you wrongly fundamented it on assuming that we are able to "know" or "experience" something after the brain stops functioning. These two actions require a consciousness as its prior, and this presupposes a brain. Once we die, all knowing and experience ceases, because these are functions of our intellect.

We associate complete lack of consciousness with "nothingness", since "something" exists for us so long as we can perceive it. But in natural death all the other bodily functrions continue acting for a while after the brain stops functioning. Our matter dissolves, and exists in other shapes. Our will, as thing in itself, remains in the rest of nature. It can rightly be assumed that we continue to exist after death, however unconscious we are of it. We are no longer "I", the world vanishes for us, but we go on in a certain way.

Interzone / Re: "The poor": kill them
« on: November 20, 2011, 06:27:22 AM »
Let me add to the discussion by saying that caste has never been proved by scientific evidence (at least not the kind of microscope-and-formulas that passes for science these days), but by the direct observation of human nature that anyone unprejudiced and with a healthy judgement can do. You don't need a bunch of statistics to prove everything under the sun.

In my view, the only "poor" that are toxic to society are those that are unable to stand on their own, and are constantly needful of the aid of others (people, organizations, capacitation programs, banks) in order to get on with their lives. To judge it by income is very relative. I bet most people here are either unemployed or at the struggling stage of their lives. I am of the second group, and if solely considered by income then I'm poor by my country's standards, and much more so by those of any first world country. And yet I can stand very well on my own two feet because I have needs that are easy and cheap to satisfy, I'm not a frivolous fool, and I save all the money I can, so that at the end of the month I'm always with cash in my pocket.

As for nutrition, I don't presume to be an expert on the subject, but I have designed my own diet based on my needs, and I have been doing quite well with it. And I buy my food, just like anyone else. The thing about healthy nutrition is that it takes a fair amount of will to persist in it and deny to oneself many foods that are tempting but won't do much good. And this the people don't want to know about, because most have no will, except to do what's absolutely necessary to sustain themselves, their families, and buy the crap that momentarily fills the void in their hearts.

Interzone / Re: Schopenhauer
« on: November 19, 2011, 08:50:50 PM »
Most people who are familiar with Schopenhauer know him through the popular essays that T. Bailey Saunders translated and compiled, including the one mentioned in the OP. But these have mostly contributed to give the image of a cranky old fellow that hated women, noise and bad writing, while his unmeasurably more important work remains as an afterthought in philosophical discussion today. A monstruous injustice, given the value of his teachings.

But these popular essays are not without their worth. At least they serve as an introduction to the personality behind them, besides being good for a laugh or two. But any serious student of Schopenhauer should at least approach "The Fourfold Root..." and book one of the "The World as Will and Representation" in order to get a grip of his fundamental doctrine. One must also understand the "Critique of Pure Reason" fairly well before approaching these books, otherwise certain key concepts, such as the ideality of time and space and the deduction of the will as thing in itself, will remain very awkward and unclear. Both philosophers complement each other so well that I can't say who is better, and I think their respective teachings should be taken as one only, since they both correct and clarify each other.

As for Nietzsche...my opinion of him will certainly be unpopular on this forum, so I'll leave it in silence. Lets just say that if you appreciate your time, you'll go for Schopenhauer.

Danica's name means morning star.

Filipino equivalent for "Lucifer"...wow.

I'm a believer now.

Interzone / Re: Chastity, virginity, honor and pride in decision-making
« on: October 17, 2011, 03:03:48 PM »
Although this seems like quite an exaggeration to me, I certainly agree in essence that sex can significantly drain your energy and that abstinence can build it up. Although it's important to qualify this statement, as there are different types of sex, for example properly-performed tantric sex doesn't drain your energy to the contrary it's all about building energy up. Also I think there's something to be said for periodically cycling from high-energy levels to low-energy levels, as a sort of routine for living in modern society, if your evolutionary modality (like my left-leaning one) is for instance particularly rebellious or defiant and poorly compatible with the modern world; as the adage goes it's not a symptom of mental health to be well-adjusted to an insane society, and as much as tantra is a very fine art I'd argue it's a skill to ride some lower-level righteous indignation now and then.

It was not an exaggeration, believe me. The amount of energy that is concentrated in the sexual impulse is astonishing, and could be channelled with some effort into other purposes. It seems counter-intuitive, I know, seeing that this power is contained in just a small volume of semen. 

I heard much about tantra, but most of it seem like bollocks to me. All pleasures in life have their quid pro quo, and I don't see sex as an exception. For me, the only properly performed sex is that which gives great satisfaction to both parts, but if abused, the consequences must still be faced.

I used to be rebellious, but then I realised that modern society, save externals, is not much different from all the others that preceded it. Seeing that I was not in a dead-end calmed me a bit, and got me focused on my goals.

Interzone / Re: Chastity, virginity, honor and pride in decision-making
« on: October 17, 2011, 12:08:31 AM »
Chastity can be deemed absurd and pointless only in the context of a society which canonises sex and prizes it as a holy experience, namely our own. Yet, when looking at the facts (i.e. experience), abstinence from sex can give immediate personal benefits, and this anyone can prove empirically. I do a lot of intellectual work, and I have proved in myself how beneficial abstinence can be. After >14 days of withdrawal from all sexual activities, my nerves take only a few minutes to recover themselves even after a whole day of intense mental activity, while a day after sex my nerves can be wrecked for hours if I strain them only for a while. Of course, other factors have their influence as well, like diet, exercise, and sleep. 

Sex may be, indeed, a delightful activity in itself, but whoever trades that pleasure in a regular basis for long-term health, activity and well-being, wins a gold mine. This has nothing to do with society and religion. It's the way we humans are made.

Interzone / Re: Increasing vocabulary
« on: June 19, 2011, 06:01:06 PM »
Anki. This software has been very helping on my learning of the german vocabulary. It is a virtual flash-card manager that programs the next time you'll see a card based on how well you know it.

Watch the introductory videos. They'll explain this better than I could.

Interzone / Re: Introduction to philosophy
« on: April 29, 2011, 03:58:05 PM »
Just saying how awesome this thread is.

III. Track philosophy historically

1. Start with the Greeks, specifically Plato and Aristotle
2. Romans: Marcus Aurelius
3. Kant
4. ... Schopenhauer
5. Then read the moderns
6. Then fill in the gaps

This is how universities should teach.

Nietzsche can be largely left out; he's the kind of philosopher best studied individually.

Nietzsche is the kind best not read at all. Stick with philosophy that can actually teach you something substantial, i.e. the above, plus Epictetus and the rest of the stoic school for an excellent practical philosophy applicable at all times.

Compared with all of them, Nietzsche's scribblings look like the ravings of a lunatic, and as a matter of fact that's what they are, when not rambling, dull or vague.

[1] 2