Nilsi

Let's use a concrete example to make this more tangible. Imagine you are seeing a girl and you really like her. You are happy, perhaps even in love, and your life is going well in other areas as well. Now one day, she comes to you and tells you she is running off to the other side of the world to pursue spirituality and suggests you should join her, assuring that money and other practical matters will be taken care of. You like her a lot, and the idea is somewhat appealing, but you also have goals and plans that require you to maintain your current living situation. THIS IS CONFLICT. Now, what do you do? Do you double down on your current life trajectory, or on her; or perhaps do you seek some kind of compromise where you can have "the best of both worlds"? This is perhaps a bit of a dramatic example, but such conflicts arise all the time. It was on this basis that I was constructing my argument.

I get it. I'm a salesman and marketing consultant by day, so I understand the power of clear and straightforward communication quite well. However, I don't believe there is any room for such concerns in philosophy. My motivation is not to persuade you of my argument, but to show you something that deeply engages me - and that, I bet you would agree, is seldom ordinary pragmatic stuff.

The premise of my argument is that conflict is intrinsic to the self, and there are various methods for approaching and resolving it; I've detailed two such methods. I don't mean to seem ungrateful, but this forum wouldn't be my first choice if I were earnestly seeking answers about personal issues. The incident I described offered me some insight into a metaphysical aspect of two philosophers with whom I am deeply engaged, and I thought it served well as a means to discuss their ideas. I claim that you do have a say in how you interpret reality, although it's clear that much of this is beyond your control, as I suggested when discussing the unconscious. Or are you suggesting that agency is altogether illusory? The conflict is perpetual; that is precisely the point. An infinite problem-space exists outside your current identity, and the central question is how you navigate this space. Do you adopt a passive approach, accommodating the unknown without committing to any stance, or do you boldly, perhaps recklessly, stand firm in your beliefs and identity ("ride-or-die" - a lovely description) and push these as far as possible? You may think you can resolve this situation by projecting these opposing movements into the future, thereby allowing the two aforementioned metaphysical approaches to dynamically interact over time. This projection, in a paradoxically Hegelian manner, attempts to synthesize the contradictions inherent in viewing Nietzsche through the dialectical process. However, in reality, all you can do is enact one of these philosophical stances in the present moment. This begs the question and forces you to answer: which side do you choose? This conclusion might appear to be just another a priori commitment to a metaphysical argument - specifically Nietzsche's notion of "Eternal Return," which posits that this eternal now is all there ever is, with any choice and identity being created and perpetually reinforced not in some abstract, dialectical future but in the immediate reality. However, my claim is that this is a much more true and robust way of conceptualizing reality and conflict than what Hegel (and by extension, much of the implicit metaphysics in this community) offers.

I couldn’t care less who wrote what; at the end of the day, I judge the finished work of art. I also couldn’t care less about his ego. Drake is obviously not as conscious, saintly, or emancipatory as Kendrick - and why would you want him to be? I listen to Drake when I just want to turn off my rational mind a little and feel like the man. That itch he scratches perfectly when he’s at his best.

One of the greatest and most profound rap tracks of all time. From the Ryuichi Sakamoto sample to the title referencing the classic Trine work in American New Thought, to the Wizard of Oz and Elijah Muhammad preludes - and of course, Jay Electronica’s confessional lyrics on God and his spiritual conviction, with his heartfelt delivery reaching transcendent heights in lines such as: "To the lawyers, to the sheriffs, to the judges, To the debt holders and the law makers, Fuck you, sue me, bill me, That name on that birth certificate, that ain't the real me, The lies can't conceal me, The sunrise and the moon tides and the sky's gon' reveal me, My brain pours water out my tear ducts to heal me." - this is some real shit man. For some reason, though, this track has been removed from all streaming platforms (except Tidal, which I happen to use - insert shameless plug) and only exists as some weird reupload on YouTube.

I don't believe she is naive enough to suggest that one can simply change their gender in any way they desire. Her argument owes a lot to Deleuzian metaphysics, in that for her, the concept of gender is deeply entangled in language, its cultural context, power dynamics, and so on. While there is some degree of individual agency within this complex interrelationship, it isn't merely a matter of individual choice. Rather, any notion of individuation and self-actualization is only possible by recognizing the limitations and affordances of this cultural matrix and consciously navigating it.

Of course, this is a highly privileged and resource-intensive pursuit, likely unsuitable for 99% of people, so take what I've said with a grain of salt.

If you want to approach this academically, consider reading some philosophy of art or aesthetics. Theodor Adorno's oeuvre is perhaps the most ambitious in scope in this area, though highly biased, of course. You will have to explore a variety of theorists to gain a well-rounded understanding of aesthetics.

Books are not the best medium for this. Instead, magazines like Vogue and Architectural Digest are valuable resources, and they also offer an extensive catalog of YouTube content. Museums and exhibitions on modern art are another excellent resource. Consider browsing second-hand online stores that specialize in high-end designer products, such as Vestiaire or 1stdibs. Determine which designers and styles you prefer, then purchase some of their items. Wear or use them to experience their immediate aesthetic appeal. If you don't like something, resell it. If you're savvy, you can even make a small profit doing this. Refine your style over time. This is akin to any developmental process—it's iterative and takes time to become highly refined.

Kendrick, and it's not even close. I'm secretly rooting for a Drizzy revenge arc, though. The man has been on a creative downward spiral for half a decade now, which is a shame considering how good his rapping was at his peak (which I claim was genuinely top-tier, contrary to most critics who want to make it seem as if his raps have always been clearly subpar to his more R&B-oriented music). In the meantime, here are some of what I see as career highlights, as far as his more rap-oriented music goes:

If you’re an adult and pretend to be sick just to get some time off work, you should seriously question your life choices.

¹ the following are the said dreamboards; they should serve only to illustrate my point, and I won't engage in any discussions about their subject matter: Exhibit A: Exhibit B:

But that is the case in any religion. The difference is that Islam produces much more spiritual insight on a large scale, which, ironically, makes it that much more fanatical and self-righteous.

That’s precisely the problem. Any genuine spiritual insight is filtered and interpreted through their dogmatic beliefs and only reinforces the most toxic aspects of their worldview.

Of course, this is far from ideal and personally, it wouldn’t work for me at all, but you have to keep in mind that the people I’m referring to are hardcore capitalistic achievers and temperamentally would otherwise have no spirituality in their lives at all.

If you stick to a spiritual routine so diligently for such a long period of time, there is bound to be some real insight gained, just by fluke luck, no matter how mechanical the process is.

A large part of it is unconscious acting out, of course, but I do get the sense that there is some authentic spiritual connection happening in their prayer, at least some of the time for some of them.

I do respect their devotion and integrated practice very much, though. They diligently perform their prayers and spiritual cleansing five times a day, regardless of the context, and they are generally extremely respectful toward each other when it comes to their traditions and practices. They also have extremely strong family ties and are quite active participants in their communities—something that is almost unheard of in large parts of the Western liberal world.

There is a profoundly toxic core to Islam. Many people in my close circle are Muslims, and they are extremely intelligent and successful, which I generally respect a lot. However, when I question them about their core beliefs, they tell me that as a non-believer, I will end up in hell unless I convert to Islam—and they are quite aggressive in trying to convert me. They also believe they are the most manly, intelligent, and superior people. Women are obviously seen as inferior and subservient, serving no role other than supporting a man. In general, they are quite closed-minded and domineering. Additionally, they radically reject any notion of progress, hold a highly anthropomorphized view of God, and view the Islamic state as the eternal ideal of God’s creation. Of course, any religion has toxic elements, but in Islam, these seem so central to their belief that it’s hard to imagine a healthy form of it. Christianity appears quite different and seems to me to be much more mature.

This is a masterpiece of contemporary art, embodying what I would call "post-rap." In contrast to rappers in the 90s who were unconsciously acting out their sociocultural reality, Westside Gunn in this song wears his historical awareness on his sleeve. He refines gangster rap to its core elements, amplifying them to the extreme, while also demonstrating keen avant-garde sensibilities.

My claim is that postmodernism began to become the dominant sociocultural reality in the West over 100 years ago, yes, and I've given you many examples that illustrate this.

So everything that you can't find on CNN is "nutty," or even better, just flat-out "wrong"? For someone who claims to be the "most open-minded person on the planet," your mind is quite dense. You still want to push this point? An Amish person wouldn't necessarily be able to describe themselves as conservative, but could still intuitively hold the epistemic positions inherent to that "philosophy." Also, I don't care what Trump thinks or how he views himself; his actions speak louder than a thousand words. Hasn't psychoanalysis taught us anything here? Your most fundamental philosophical positions are totally unconscious, and thus a true postmodernist wouldn't be able to describe themselves as such.

I claim there was no real con-artistry before postmodernism. Con artists rely on certain psychological dispositions in the general population to exploit. If people did not believe in concrete appearances and objective truth (as is at the core of modernity), these could not be exploited by the con artist. The con artist also requires this psychological development in himself, just as the child using formal logic relies on having internalized concrete logic, so there is no way this could have existed from the dawn of time. A figure like Donald Trump can only exist within the context of contemporary mass media, where everything is pure surface and spectacle, and a Machiavellian psychopath (also a key figure emerging from the postmodern condition) can exploit the general tendency of the masses to believe their eyes and ears. A stage red ruler (at the dawn of civilization) would be incapable of such intellectual weaseling because his mythologized sense of morality (e.g. divine right of kings, blessing of the gods, etc.) is literally what makes up his identity. Anything that threatens this moral construct is brutally exterminated. What logic is that? So a dog is not a dog because it is incapable of telling you what a dog is?

Which is precisely what makes him the quintessential postmodern president.