UpperMaster

@aurum I mean look. It is only a problem when it causes you more harm than good. Most people who operate on a win-lose basis struggle to deal with losing. People like Michael Jordan don't like to lose, but they know how to focus their energies to make a comeback (most people can't do this). So I would argue that it is more good than bad. Alright sure, at the top, it is hard to say whose the best. But you can definitely think of a few people right off the bat who are among the greatest, if not the best, in any field. Eg. Tiger Woods in Golf. I do agree in art its slightly more difficult because the only real track record of success is monetary. I agree only chasing monetary success isn't great but I definitely think it can be good motivation. I don't buy this bs that monetary success is super virtuousness. I would rather be rich than poor.

@LSD-Rumi It took me a while to process what you said here but your right. I am in a slightly better position now.This problem is quite high level, and I personally realized that I am approaching it from fear as you described, thus I don't think I will tackle it right now.

@Ulax Hey man thanks for your reply. I watched this video and honestly it did help a lot. Especially made me realize that what I am going through right now is something that many people will go through. I honestly owe it to this video man for real, it has made it a bit easier.

I have seen your video of free will. I've revisited it again after this comment. What your saying is extremely radical. I somewhat hope your right about how the puppet-master and the puppet is really just one being and not some metaphysical mumbo jumbo. I'll probably watch the video a couple more times so that I can really process this possibility. Ultimately I need to confirm this on my own. Thank you.

@ZzzleepingBear I don't understand what you mean by free will being a "ghost from the past". I can only understand non-duality in an intellectual level, I can't imagine how it would really feel like because I haven't felt it.

I do think that I might need to take a break from metaphysics. Just to calm myself down. But again yea its hard because of the cognitive dissonance I have on the issue (although I suspect if I forced myself to forget about it, it would work). What do you mean by "use the emotional guidance scale"?

@How to be wise Actually no, my social life is alright. But yea when I am around other people, my worries seem to fade away. However when I'm alone, or trying to motivate myself or making any sort of decision, I get instantly reminded of my new found nihilism.

and lobsters

I've been watching videos by the yogi Acharya Shree Yogeesh for a while. I'm curious as to what this forum thinks of his teachings and whether or not they are worthwhile. This is his channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/AcharyaShreeYogeesh/videos This is a recent video I watched of him.

I think it would be very helpful

@Tahuti It's both, what is the implications of cherry picking here? Well, I would argue its more appropriate to call it an addiction because it is negatively impacting my life.

I appreciate the responses from everyone. Here, I see two different points of view: those who believe that jerking off is normal, and those who believe that there is something seriously wrong with it in terms of how it affects your life. I can also somewhat imagine how porn can be absolute beautiful from a "high consciousness" standpoint. The issue is that I watch porn out of an addiction rather than out of genuine desire. I feel like I'm going to be screwed if I don't do it. If I didn't have an addiction to it which I do, I would love to jerk off every day.

That's pretty crazy

I'm a complete spiritual newbie. Thanks to Leo, I started meditating more seriously and am currently learning about enlightenment work. The more I study about enlightenment, the more foggy my idea of it becomes. Is it a one time thing or a continuous process? Although enlightenment and awakening are often used interchangeably, according to some people, Awakening implies to a single experience of who we really are. Whereas enlightenment is this final destination, where we eternally merge with our "true nature". Yogis like Sadhguru among others discuss this, presenting the spiritual process as this "ladder" that we climb. Experience after experience, we reach the top. The final step according to him is "true enlightenment". He explains that most people wont be able to handle this, and immediately leave the body as it happens. I'm mad confused right now. Someone, enlighten me.

Right now, Andrew Tate is one of the most well-known figures in the self-help industry. He is very charismatic and attractive to the youth. He is not afraid to voice his controversial principles and life philosophy. Recently he has been silenced by social media as people took offense to his opinions on the treatment of woman. I personally don't agree with all the things he has said. I do, however, applaud his clever and deliberate approach to gaining influence on social media. I greatly admire his "experience is king" approach of living, as well as his positive outlook and mental tenacity. In response to his social media ban, he published a video clarifying himself at https://www.freetopg.com I am curious to what this forum thinks on Andrew Tate? Does he spread a good or corrupted message for society? Let me know

David Goggins and Dan Bilzerian are completely different. Dan Bilzerian plays an alpha male playboy, I don't think he'd be of value to you. On the other hand, David Goggins has a great message for everyone. Jocko Willink is pretty darn neat too. Yes you can benefit. Try to work towards David Goggin's and Jocko's discipline. That's about the best they do for everyone, regardless male or female.

You haven't explained why you think Andrew Tate is a devil. On what ground do you make your claims man?

Please tell me how to do this. How long would it take..just please please help me out. I've been really trying to fix this addiction. I need steps, it doesn't seem to help.

All the points you've mentioned have been debunked. I'm not saying there is 0 percent chance that this is true. But all allegations seem completely incoherent, they don't add up, and the objections seem far more plausible. Too many times has he been accused of something with zero evidence.

He has a book!? I thought he hated books. Holy shit. I just looked it up and I'm amazed how much I didn't even know about him. I'm going to take your word for what it says in the book but if that's the case, then your completely right. He has some agenda, and I don't know what. Yup, I don't think he is the best either.. The book is free on kindle. I'm really confused on his agenda. Thanks for replying. Great Argument.

Looks do matter in dating. Biologically speaking, we almost always tend to appreciate men and woman that look better than the ones that don't. This said, Wheat Waffles highly exaggerates the correlation between looks and respect, and seems to misunderstand how looks plays into dating. He believes that as a man's looks deteriorates, so does his respect from woman and other men. He points to statistics that seem to prove his point: "Most leaders are over 6 feet tall", "Taller men are paid more than shorter men","90 percent of woman go to the top 10 percent men" etc etc. A significant amount of his statistics are either experiments that don't include all the factors of dating (such as the Tinder example) or assume correlation is causation. Shorter men get paid less than Taller men not because their short, but because many short men are simply not confident due to their height, confidence and disagreeableness does increase wages. Putin is 165 cm at most, yet he is the most powerful man in the planet. In my observation: Looks seem to work as a threshold. For example, a 7/10 woman (in looks) will tend to only consider a guy that is 6 and above. Even this threshold tends to completely disappear when we consider someone with higher status. Improving looks however does seem like the simplest straight forward way to increase success, this is because as your looks increase, the less importance you need to put on other aspects of dating (as a result of increasing the threshold). Looksmaxxing is beneficial but obsessing about it will turn you into a pussy, and you will as a result get dominated by more masculine, more interesting men that may look worse than you. Another thing I disagree with majority of black pillars is how many of them simply disregard all other aspects of dating (sex, status, confidence, masculine frame, character and mystery). Relationships are very complex. Dumming down a whole relationship to looks is uncalled for. Wheat Waffles says that a huge cause for divorce and break-ups are because of men become less physically attractive over time. This is bullshit. Looks is all about getting you in the threshold, after that its all about masculine frame, game and etc. Not to mention being a decent fucking guy.

Very well said argument, Tate (as you suspected) is a self proclaimed Morpheus. His "teachings" center on the idea of freeing people from continuous servitude to the government. Tate does give people a sense of certainty, he advertises his "cut the shit attitude", which is why most hard core Tate fans are very arrogant. Many of the "Truths" Tate teaches, are be justified by real life, making them believable to many people. For eg his teaching might go like: What is true relies completely on what you believe is true. If you believe in ghosts and you here a sound at night you'll think "ohhhhh its a ghost" and you'll get scared. If you don't believe in ghosts then the damn ghost doesn't exist A more controversial teaching might go like: Woman cheating is worse than when a man cheats because a man can have sex with other woman yet be emotionally attached to his main chick. A woman on the other hand is always emotionally attached to whoever she has sex with. And on and on, you get the idea. Although Tate's sense of truth is skewed, his arrogance still can help people. People that take on his attitude are more likely to get shit done than overthink. This "cut to the shit" attitude is what some people need, especially unsuccessful and lazy men. It stops overthinking and focuses more on taking action and getting what you want.

No I agree that's dumb. But man, since when was Andrew Tate a rapist? Your either over-blowing how bad the guy is, or I'm very ignorant and don't know much about him. I don't think he raped anyone, or in charge of human trafficking, the proof is non-existent.

Stalin killed millions, he is a devil if there ever was one. He used his power and skillful manipulation to satisfy his greed. I wouldn't go near him, and I assume you wouldn't too. We agree on that. Although we've strayed away from the core of this debate, I think it is necessary we make a strong distinction between skill and the person. Stalin was a horrible guy but that doesn't mean he wasn't an extremely skillful manipulator, that carefully placed himself at the right time and the right place, acting the right way, doing the right thing to secure his place of power. Gaining power is a skill like anything else, you must have a knack for psychology and be very creative and careful. His skill on it's own can be appreciated as it is its own genius (an evil one). People do appreciate his skill, that is why George Orwell used his story as a central plot for The Animal Farm. A less gruesome example would be conmen like Charles Ponzi or Victor Lustig. If you read more about con-men, specifically the best ones, you will realize that it is less of a shortcut and more of a skill of its own. Not everyone can pull elaborate cons off, and are very likely to get caught. People may dislike conmen because of their dishonesty, yet still acknowledge the skill used for conning. The best swordsmen in the world might be the most ruthless murderer, but that doesn't take away form the fact that he is the best swordsmen.