BasedManism, or BasedMan thought is a an existentialist a priori Kantian a posteriori phenomenological esoteric/occult system.
Philosophy, as the main goal of this very page, should be the first part of our investigations into the nature of the world. Philosophy, meaning "love of wisdom" is just that, but what does that mean, and what is its purpose? Philosophy is about looking for truths, objective truths about the world which can be confirmed with logic, and that is it's purpose, to mirror the world as closely as it can and to produce a description of it so that it may be understood, that can happen only objectively, so philosophy, therefore, should aim at the highest possible objectivity (which we will discuss shortly), philosophy however has forgotten itself in the last 150 years, prefering to concentrate only on the subjective, which defeats the whole point, because then it only becomes a clear reflection of the "philosohper"'s personality, and not a hidden one (in the Nietzschean sense), there are 2 things we need to do then, for philosophy to finally become itself again: 1) focus on the objective, 2) rid ourselves of prejudice.
The dialectic is the philosopher's tool to the truth, with it he is able to explore ideas and discuss them with himself or others (through language, which we will discuss shortly), people have always tried to find how the dialectic works, for nature seems to be one huge dialectic, so if we crack the code of the dialectic we will crack the code of nature, but that is no simple task to do, the dialectic is a complicated thing and the formula used will truly have to all encompassing, as it needs to describe the whole of nature, which is nothing short of a miracle if it can be done, so far we have had almost no progress in cracking the code of this dialectic, the closest we have gotten is thesis-antithesis-synthesis which is nothing but the dialectic of a liberal democratic society and cannot work anywhere but in this very society and is limited by it, thus it cannot reach beyond political, moral or philosophical centrism, so to speak, thus we find ourselves in need to abandon all dialectic formulas and just dialect without a guide as to how to do so, then we can perhaps retrospect on our dialectics and reflect as to how they work, but given that the dialectic is a natural process even if we gave its formula we cannot just speedrun it, it has to happen naturally, so it will do us no good if we find it, we will just know how it works, but wont be able to reach some new, faster, or better way of dialectic, but i still think that since the dialectic is the nature of the world we have to attempt to find it, as to find out how the world works, which will provide us with knowledge of the absolute, the subject and existence as a whole (which we will talk about later).
The only thing preventing philosophy from objectivity is prejudice, therefore it needs to be gotten rid of, that can happen only by renouncing your ego, which is done in the form of accepting egoism as the true (anti-)moral and (anti-)political system, if this is done then philosophy can become objective because the philosopher wouldnt feel the unconscious urge to justify his moral and political prejudices, because egoism is openly admitting that one can do what he pleases and needs not obey any moral or political system, thus making it useless and needless, all this also leads us to anti-economics in general, would a philosopher wish, however, to create a moral or political system he needs to do it completely independently of the rest of his system, the whole system will be corrupted because of it, we then come to conclude that egoism is the basis of all objective philosophy and objectivity cannot exist without it, or at least in the beginning of objectivity, for example when a philosopher who has accepted egoism creates a system (which is objective) he then (afterwards, but never beforehand) can create a moral or political system, outside of his philosophical one, the point that egoism is the first basis of objectivity remains.
In our striving to end prejudice we need to take a look at history, for the historical period in which you live in can greatly impact your thoughts and give you biases. We could, like Schopenhauer, say that philosophy of history is total bullshit and is nothing of value, but that is clearly wrong, for the reason is just said, he is right that the essence of the world, the thing-in-itself is unchanging and is the same as it was 1000 years ago and will be 1000 into the future, but he isnt right about things always being the same, because things clearly do change in some very drastic ways. The best system of history we have by far is that of Spengler, in his book "The decline of the west" he outlines this system (it had been like half a year, as of writing this, that i last read the book, so my memory is a bit rusty, please excuse any errors i might make when describing it), his theory is that history goes through cycles which repeat themselves over and over again for eternity, it can be compared to the Hindu "yuga"'s, but differs from them in two very important ways, that it not only repeats its events, but also its people, he gives the example of ancient Greece and 19th century Europe, Athens would be Rome, Kant would be Aristotle, Goethe would be Plato and Napoleon would be Alexander, he says that if Napoleon wasnt around that someone else would've stepped in his place to do the same thing he did, thus we achieve one metaphysics of history, which is a bit like Schopenhauer's will, which blindly strives towards something and is willing to do anything it can to get it, history is the same, it wants an Alexander or Napoleon and it is getting it, the second thing is that the outlines phases each civilization goes through before its eventual death (we are close to collapse btw, if youre wondering), all these cultures have their own way of viewing the world, for example greek civilization viewed the world purely physically, their Gods lived on mt. Olympus, they had no number "0" because they saw it as non-existent, if that is so why would they need a number to represent a non-number, their primary art form were sculptures showcasing the body in all its glory, this should on prove how concrete they really were, now lets take a look at our civilization, the "Faustian" one, as he calls it, we are a civilization focused on infinity, examples of this are: our math is mostly theoretical, whilst the greeks' was practical, has a greek seen our math he would understand it, as it is so out of touch with the concrete world in front of our eyes it would seem to him absurd, our God is a divine being without a physical body, he is everywhere at the same time, and since the universe is infinite, in our eyes at least, so is he, our primary art form is music, music is an art that is theoretically infinite, as you can always make a new song with just one change of a tune, thus giving it infinitude, that which we seek, another very clear example of this is how we managed to conquer the rest of the world outside Europe, that is because we were so focused on the infinite and exploring it, another even clearer example of this is the space race, to see which nation would reach the infinite cosmos first. Now that we know all this, how can we protect ourselves from this prejudice of history? The answer is simple, we must look at that which is unchangeable, but how do we know what is unchangeable if even math isnt, well, that would be something separate from time, space and causality, as it is unchanging and even true, i.e. the individual, in him is all the knowledge, how is Hindu religion so relevant and true to what seems to be our own original european philosophy? Because they look inwards, where it is always the same and is unaffected by the outside world of constant flux, hence why mysticism is immortal. Another thing we can do is completely separate ourselves from modern culture by means of revolting, that can be either physically, spiritually or culturally, but most of the time people who partake in this revolt just run back to an older "version" shall we call it, of said thing, so one has to revolt, but not replace, but is way too difficult to do, hence why i outlined the previous method first, i can probably go on about history for 1000s of words, but i think this is enought to get the general grasp of my understanding of history.
The dialectic, philosophy, ideas, etc. can only be discusses through language, i.e. words, i.e. abstract ideas, which are formed a priori (with space and time, which are a priori because they are the condition under which empirical a posteriori shit takes place, therefore they must be a priori, because the condition for a posteriori cannot be learned a posteriori) after they have first been concrete (representational) ideas, words are what differentiates humans from animals, in that sense humans can be called abstractis animalibus, they however other than being an evolutionary (pun indented) way to communicate, are also a prison which we are forced into, true thinking happens without words, just by mental pictures, that is also why the geniuses of history have all thought it pictures, because it allows them to escape the prison of words which they are forced in and allows them to go beyond them, thinking in pictures allows us to discover stuff that doesnt have words for it yet, so will be impossible to conclude with their help, platonic ideas, for example are not accessible to word minded simpletons, but only to the genius who have the ability to go beyond them, words (or abstract ideas, as we can also call them) are what makes a something something (which we will talk about shortly), they are what we use to describe the absolute, but they fail at their job, as with them something is always missing out of the picture, this affects even geniuses, if they want to share their findings outside the prison of words they eventually have to come back in the cave, and since people in there cannot understand their mental picture they have to convert them into words, even the best poet, then, cannot give his readers the full picture (feeling, scenery, etc.), are they not gifted with at least some amount of visualization that will help them understand it visually, because otherwise, the poet's words will be just that - words, all too empty words. Truth, therefore, cannot be said, it has to be felt, tasted even. TASTE THE TRUTH, O, YOU, BRAVE WANDERER!
(i found out i have basically been a fichtean this whole time, i also for out i was wrong, archived version of the first version of this section: https://pastebin.com/0f9HGvKy)
Materialism and rationalism - simple ideas for simple people, are they not? One would think that no one would believe them still, as they can be disproved with one sentence each, let us now destroy the 21st century, then: 1) the condition for the universe and matter is time and space, which are in the subject (individual), since the universe (and the subject, as materialism claims) is inside time and space, time and space must therefore contain the condition for themselves within themselves, which is nothing short of impossible as it makes zero logical sense. 2) Everything in the time and space (and the universe) is cause-effect, no doubt about that, but if that is the true nature of reality, then how did it come to be? Was it some short of mistake? (As a pessimist, i have to say yes, but that is besides the point.) The first cause in the chain cannot have come from a reason, as it is first CAUSE, therefore the first cause of the universe must be irrational (a will, for example) since that is the only possible explanation of how the first reason came to be, if there was nothing to logically cause it.
(WARNING: this is the section written in the worst way and may have some logical inconsistencies, excuse it for now, i will fix it in the future) The search for the absolute can be regarded as the search for the thing-in-itself, the one true nature of reality which explains itself and everything that can be and is, it would be impossible to learn it outwardly, it may now seem impossible to do so, but fear not, for we are IT, therefore introspection will allow us to know it, now that we introspect we come to find that our body is both will and representation, thus we come to find that will is the absolute nature of the world and (inward: i am the world: egoism ; outward: the world is like me: will and representation ; in both cases this remains true and the will remains) the thing-in-itself.
(Take this section which a grain of salt, as i have not worked out the ideas in it fully) Self-interest seems to be the true egoist way of doing things, egoists even advice that we do as we please, that is, do as our self-interest is, but can we find a way to determine this self-interest of ours, well, we do, lets take a look at it. Our nature, as humans, and animals is one: the will-to-power, as said by Nietzsche, therefore it is in our self-interest to look after that will-to-power, self-interest therefore = more life and more power. How do we get more life and more power? Well, i find it hard to believe we would get to our self-interest by doing as other egoists have done and "doing whatever the fuck we want", because by that logic i can just overdose on heroin right now, because i felt like it, that is no way to achieve your self-interest, let me tell you, so therefore we need a more stable foundation for it, that is: reason; reason cannot betray you, it is *you* in some sense, as you wont be able to form an ego without reason, so we come to the conclusion that it cannot do you any harm if you follow it, as its main purpose is serving you, i.e. itself, i.e. its own self-interest, i.e. your own self-interest. Reason, as that which determines what we shall do for our self-interest then, says we need to protect the environment, that should be obvious, as we can not even live, let alone achieve what is in our self-interest if the environment if fucked up (we can also make the case of how industrial society is against our self-interest, as Ted Kaczynski did, in which case we need not only be environmentalist, but also anti-technological). We see how the best thing for something is itself, power is good for that which is will-to-power, human is good to another human, as it is the closest thing a human can get to doubling one's self, therefore our self-interest should be to coop with other people and form a collective in which we coop for our mutual self-interest, but it must be noted that by "collective" i do not mean a place which neglects individuality, as the individual is always the best for itself, so therefore should not be stomped on by the collective, as it goes against his self-interest, of course it doesnt go against the collective's self-interest, so the individual, so long as he wish to keep by the rule of self-interest, should flee the collective. (may add more in the future)
Life is sufferining, there is no denying that, you would have to be nothing but a fool to even deny it, the only people who outwardly seem to be spared of suffering are ascetics which, as Schopenhauer said, have turned away from the will to a life of quiet peace and solitude where they find happiness (it is important to note that Schopenhauer viewed happiness as the absence of suffering), but he himself admitted that asceticism is only for a select few, not even the rich are spared from suffering, for if you are born rich you will be cursed with boredom, pointless suffering because of your surrogate activities and the biggest of the curses: empathy, for when you are both rich (meaning you have no problems of your own to worry about) and emphatic you will most certainly suffer more than a poor man and a homeless man, because they have their own suffering to worry about, hence their acknowledgement of suffering is just that of their own, for the most part, but the rich man who sees his fellow men suffer, o, how cursed he is, for the suffering of the world is endless and when he is free from his suffering, he directs his sight at that of others, causing his to feel theirs, resulting in way more suffering that the poor and homeless man combined, how shall a person deal with this cruel world then? Are you not lucky enough to become an ascetic your only chance to redeem your suffering is to become a great man, for the great men in history have used their suffering to create glory, to make themselves remembered, to have songs sung in their name, monuments build in their image, and that memory of its echo history and cause future generations to tremble in both fear and admiration, that is the only noble way to redeem your suffering, by turning it on its head and turning it to joy for the future, much like how poets do it, "What is a poet? An unhappy person who conceals profound anguish in his heart but whose lips are so formed as signs and cries pass over they sound like beautiful music." as Kierkegaard wrote in Either/or, let that be your "why" through all the suffering! Now, how does one go about doing this? Two ways to be remembered: by your passions (poems, painting, books, art in general) and your reason (philosophy, military conquest, anything that requires a high degree of intelligence), both ways lead to one path: the body, in order to affirm passions: AFFIRM THE BODY, FOR IT IS THE GIVER OF PASSIONS ; in ordfer to affirm reason: AFFIRM THE BODY, FOR IT IS THE KEEPER OF REASON (i.e. the brain)! Go on, you brave soul, go on and affirm!
Looked from the outside, my esoteric views can seen strange, concerning or even alarming, but they are not without good reason, i believe in order to know the world and explore it we must also face off against its more unknown and unexplainable face, esotericism that is, on top of that i have had multiple very profound religious experiences which have led me here and i am confident when i say that the occult is some real shit. I have a lot of shit, from religious figures, to demons, to symbolic representations of very religious themes, NO I AM NOT SCHIZOPHRENIC, i do not know how to logically explain what i have seen and experienced, for it seems to be beyond logic, thankfully C.G. Jung devoted a large part of his work to studying the psychology of the occult, so i seem to be getting a lot of messages from what he calls "the collective unconscious", which is as he put it, a place in the psyche that is shared by everyone and from where mythology comes from, he describes it as a thing that evolved from when humanity was still only an observer, so to speak, and not a doer, so we still it left off in our psyche. Modern man cannot bear the fact of this discovery, so he buries it under his rationalism and logic, but he cannot run from it, as it is a the biggest part of his, and what we suppress comes out even stronger, or in this case, unhealthier, that is the main gist of Jung's theory. We can now see that no matter how you look at it, the occult is there and it must be studied, no matter if its under the title of collective unconscious, or schizophrenia, so in conclusion: i am an esoteric wizard.
The best is yet to come and babe, won't it be fine?
BasedManism's personality is the same as its creator's, that should be taken as: intellectual, creative, poetic, quiet, stubborn, gloomy, cynical, paranoid ; often goes on rants about stuff he either fully likes or dislikes, no in-between, he also likes to poke holes in other's people logic and debate them about it, he is however no stranger to having fun, looking forward to his meetups with his small friend group, when he is seen with them he is almost unrecognizable than when he's alone or with people whom he doesnt consider friends, he can very often be seen thinking or reading quietly when alone. It can also be noted that he is an INFJ 5w4 (529) sp/sx melancholic-phlegmatic.
Every "Nietschean" on here seems to be forgetting one thing - to put themselves beyond good and evil (or in this case, beyond based and cringe), so i will do it for you, no need to thank me
- BasedManism - I like this guy
- Schizophrenic Accelerationism - i have to make an exception to the beyond based and cringe rule, sorry
i will add what i agree and disagree about in their philosophies later on
- HelloThere314 - imma wait for you to finish your page until i review it
- 07 - interesting ideas
- - i have respect for you, as you seem pretty well read, i am however confused as to why you are so anti-metaphysics and that whole thing, perhaps you see the thing-in-itself as turning away from the physical which is really not the case, if Kant is right, it is useless, we just have to acknowledge it and move on, and if Schopenhauer is right, we know it and there is nothing more to know about it so it is useless once again, and we can only turn towards the physical world. Also your use of Fichte intrigued me, so i ordered a book of his, imma read it and then redo this thing as i will then have more of an idea of what you are talking about
- File:Council.png CouncilGuy - the most interesting person here, it is quite the pleasure to read you, one thing i have to say tho is, look into Schopenhauer's principium individuationis, it proves the will is singular
- Owfism - OH MY GOSH! Aristotle? Descartes? Get with the tiiimes, girlfriend! (read Kant, that is, even tho to zoom zooms on here is out of season it seems)
- Pantheonism - i dont understand much about politics (so i just stick to schzio ramble about philosophy), but your ideology doesnt at all seem bad, i werent a basedmanist (and i wasnt an egoist for philosophical and not political reasons), id want to be a basedmanist, but if basedmanism didnt exist i think we would be pretty similar politically
- Ego-Progressivism - not too bad, could be better
- - hmmm
- Glencoeism - the only stable foundation for knowledge is you consciousness, pretty much everything else can be doubted away
- Atronism - utopian socialism
- - if you wanna be one of the non-conformists all you have to do is dress just like us and listen to the same music we do. other than that youre fine i guess
Books i own
(Note: i have not read all the books i own (but i have read most of them), nor do i own all the books ive read)
- The Upanishads
- The art of war
- The Iliad
- The Odyssey
- The republic
- The Holy Bible
- Letters from a stoic
- The prince
- The social contract
- The inferno
- Two treatise of government
- Theory of moral sentiments
- [Voltaire's] Philosophical tales
- An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding
- Critique of pure reason
- Critique of practical reason
- Critique of judgement
- Lectures on logic
- [[File:Fichteanism.png] Science of knowledge
- Phenomenology of spirit
- Science of logic
- Philosophy of right
- The world as will and representation
- The world as will and representation volume 2
- Parerga (and paralipomena)
- (Parerga and) paralipomena
- The art of being happy
- Fear and trembling
- The repetition
- Notes from the underground
- Crime and punishment
- The brothers Karamazon
- War and peace
- Anna Karenina
- The death of a Ivan Ilych
- A confession
- Human, all too human
- The joyful science
- Thus spoke Zarathustra
- Beyond good and evil
- On the geneology of morals
- Twilight of the idols
- Ecce homo
- Das kapital
- The philosophy of inequality
- The purpose of history
- The new middle age
- Brave new world
- On dreams
- Psychology of the unconscious
- Beyond the Pleasure Principle
- Civilization and it's Disconnects
- The Ego and the Id
- The decline of the west Volume 1
- The decline of the west Volume 2
- My struggle
- Two essays on analytical psychology
- Psychological types
- Development of personality
- Collective unconscious and its symbols
- Man and his symbols
- Psychology and alchemy
- Answer to Job
- Collected works [the trial, the castle, etc.]
- The happy death
- The stranger
- The myth of Sisyphus
- The plague
- The fall
- The nausea
- The words
- The wall
- Animal farm
- Being and time
- Catcher in the rye
- Fahrenheit 451
- Beyond freedom and dignity
- The void
- Neo-Touseyism - Welcome to the wiki and you seem quite intelligent, im not sure whether to take this as a compliment but why did you use all of my header, ideolegy box theme, and background colors. Like its a bit wierd that our pages are the eact same looking.
- BasedMan - ah, well, i needed something to make my page look nice, hope its not a problem, i can change it if you want
- Pantheonism - Add me?
- BasedMan - ok, can you add me too?
- Pantheonism - Alright.
- BasedMan - ok, can you add me too?
- Ego-Progressivism - Add me?
- - Add me?
- Glencoe - add me plz?
- Atronism - Could you add me?
- - add me, basedman.
- Template:UserMatteel - Added. add me please?
- Pantheonism - What do you think about this comic I made about us?
Bourgeoisie destroyerism If you ever check this can you add me