Sorry, never been here before and know nothing about this place and all the other “stupid questions” here seem super formal so I feel really out of place here but, how common is it for the users on this site, the likes of whom likely all refer to themselves as rationalists to be misanthropes?
I hate humans. I hate humans so much. I used to think I could change them. I used to think every human who exhibited behavior I found to be inferior was simply ignorant of true rationality. Mines is a very long story that I no longer want to tell but it was months of thinking I could change every mind I found inferior before I came to the conclusion that humans are worthless and that they’ve simply devolved to the lowest common denominator, to the point where they retain not the capacity to grasp the objective breadth of rationality in this universe unless they lack the very things that make them human.
I have extremely strong opinions on everything I’ve cared to question, the likes of which I wish to express formally before I die but I hate humans so much. I wouldn’t be doing it for the human. I am probably technically depressed at the moment and have been for a long time and was just wondering how many self-proclaimed rationalists consider themselves misanthropes, or at least exhibit misanthropic views...
If this is representative of your usual conversation style, then everyone above a certain level of competence will correctly infer that they should avoid you. This will leave you with conversation partners that are far below average. Your other statements make me think that this has, in fact, happened.
I used to think I could change them.
This is a difficult skill. The first step, if you truly want to change someone, is to establish mutual respect. If they think you don’t like them, they will resist all attempts to influence them. This is definitely the right strategic move on their part, and even if they don’t think about strategy at all, their instincts and emotions will guide them to it. If you think that you should be able to convince people of things, with this style of writing or this style of writing translated into speech, then you have misunderstood the nature of social interaction and you need to study the basics with the humility of a beginner.
Mate, you can argument by assertion fallacy your opinions all you want but it appears to me that my opinions are correct, and that all conceivable dissenting opinions are incorrect, and I can explain why. If pure logic cannot convince others to think like me then does it not mean that the only way to have them conform to what I want them to is by compromising the integrity of my beliefs, and attempting to effect them via playing with their emotionality directly? That is irrational behavior. I would rather be correct and affirm my superiority the right way than try to manipulate people irrationally because my rhetoric will fall on deaf ears.
Our culture typically presents rationality as opposed to emotion; I believe that a disproportionate number of misanthropes are drawn to rationality for that reason.
However, logic is meaningless without having an underlying goal, and goals are generally determined by one’s emotions. What are your goals?
I find that thinking of other people as inferior or irrational is not particularly helpful in accomplishing my objectives. I feel less stress and make more progress by recognizing that other people have different goals than I do.
It is possible to get others (even “irrational” others) to help you accomplish your goals by offering to help them with theirs.
Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal… Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct “logic” is contingent on the human’s ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming “logic” as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.
My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything… I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it… I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.
I do not believe that “stress” in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one’s method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to… I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth… converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational… If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...
Obviously, the human’s understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of “rationality”… What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of “good” and “evil” to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.
Ugh… I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that “stress” if “stress” is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure… Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but “stress” should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.
When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn’t make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by “goals” you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.
About your last sentence, I don’t believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish… If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it’s interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I’ve had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes… I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don’t know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.
Possibly I don’t understand your situation (“devolved” doesn’t make sense to me except as Star Trek syence, a word I just invented based on the name SyFy. It could be a more polite version of ‘syfyces’.)
But I find it useful to remind myself that humans have no evolutionary reason to be perfectly rational. I tell myself that if any future I hope for comes to pass, the people there will see us (at the present time) as particularly foolish children who, rather horribly, age and die before growing up.
Sorry, I suppose I misused the word “devolve”… I’ve seen others use it as I have in my post here so I thought it was okay, but I suppose not. Perhaps they misused it, and if so I should not be tolerating the arbitrary and blatant misuse of words. What I meant by that word though was simply falling in stature. My using the word was to express that I believed humans have fallen in stature to the point that they cannot fall in stature anymore, and that the humans who roam the earth today will continue to breed and forge the world they want without changing very much in the next few generations of human if ever.
I just realized this site has a quoting feature. That makes responding to posts SO much easier...
But I find it useful to remind myself that humans have no evolutionary reason to be perfectly rational.
Yes… I believe the same thing. One does not have to provide to anything a rational reason to copulate, and to breed. One does not need to provide a rational reason to anything to live, to kill, to, force the world to tend to the end they want or anything. Humans appear to simply do. Naturally, through generations of the human simply doing, and doing as they please, they have perhaps become incapable of actually questioning whether or not simply doing is right, but what do I know? This is just a theory, and not one I can prove with sheer logic. Even if I fancied doing so it would be a waste of time… It would be far worth my effort to simply deduce and affirm what it means to be right, and what it means to be wrong. Whether or not the human has the capacity to truly be rational and what caused rationality and being human to be mutually exclusive if they are can be questioned later...
I self-describe as a rationalist and I don’t like humans that much at all. Don’t know how common this is.
I like humans well enough when -I can have a sensible interaction with them -Or, they are willing to accommodate my needs with needing an explanation for everything -Or, if I can manage their irrationality with a strategy that has a low cost to myself
Otherwise, I don’t like humans very much or at all. Maybe disappointed? I wouldn’t say hate (though the thought does come up).
I have been depressed. I’ve learned to deal with it, and I don’t feel I’m depressed now, though I am probably at risk for depression.
Mostly I try to do things for myself. And to put myself in a position where I won’t depend on any individual human for anything vital, and to have resources for as much self-reliance as possible.
Sorry, never been here before and know nothing about this place and all the other “stupid questions” here seem super formal so I feel really out of place here but, how common is it for the users on this site, the likes of whom likely all refer to themselves as rationalists to be misanthropes?
I hate humans. I hate humans so much. I used to think I could change them. I used to think every human who exhibited behavior I found to be inferior was simply ignorant of true rationality. Mines is a very long story that I no longer want to tell but it was months of thinking I could change every mind I found inferior before I came to the conclusion that humans are worthless and that they’ve simply devolved to the lowest common denominator, to the point where they retain not the capacity to grasp the objective breadth of rationality in this universe unless they lack the very things that make them human.
I have extremely strong opinions on everything I’ve cared to question, the likes of which I wish to express formally before I die but I hate humans so much. I wouldn’t be doing it for the human. I am probably technically depressed at the moment and have been for a long time and was just wondering how many self-proclaimed rationalists consider themselves misanthropes, or at least exhibit misanthropic views...
If this is representative of your usual conversation style, then everyone above a certain level of competence will correctly infer that they should avoid you. This will leave you with conversation partners that are far below average. Your other statements make me think that this has, in fact, happened.
This is a difficult skill. The first step, if you truly want to change someone, is to establish mutual respect. If they think you don’t like them, they will resist all attempts to influence them. This is definitely the right strategic move on their part, and even if they don’t think about strategy at all, their instincts and emotions will guide them to it. If you think that you should be able to convince people of things, with this style of writing or this style of writing translated into speech, then you have misunderstood the nature of social interaction and you need to study the basics with the humility of a beginner.
Mate, you can argument by assertion fallacy your opinions all you want but it appears to me that my opinions are correct, and that all conceivable dissenting opinions are incorrect, and I can explain why. If pure logic cannot convince others to think like me then does it not mean that the only way to have them conform to what I want them to is by compromising the integrity of my beliefs, and attempting to effect them via playing with their emotionality directly? That is irrational behavior. I would rather be correct and affirm my superiority the right way than try to manipulate people irrationally because my rhetoric will fall on deaf ears.
Our culture typically presents rationality as opposed to emotion; I believe that a disproportionate number of misanthropes are drawn to rationality for that reason.
However, logic is meaningless without having an underlying goal, and goals are generally determined by one’s emotions. What are your goals?
I find that thinking of other people as inferior or irrational is not particularly helpful in accomplishing my objectives. I feel less stress and make more progress by recognizing that other people have different goals than I do.
It is possible to get others (even “irrational” others) to help you accomplish your goals by offering to help them with theirs.
Sorry, before I mention my personal goals I just want to say that I disagree with the notion that logic is meaningless without being founded on an underlying goal… Logic as I understand it is by definition merely a method of thinking, or the concept of sequencing thought to reach conclusions, and determining why some of such sequences are right. I believe logic in itself- according to the second definition I proposed- tends to the end of a goal, and that goal is rationality. Naturally, without having anything to sequence logic is nothing and has no breadth, but in this universe where the breadth of the construct “logic” is contingent on the human’s ability to sequence data it should inherently have a goal, at least today as the human appears, and that goal should be rationality, in my opinion. I believe assuming your proposal is correct would mean assuming “logic” as you used it in your proposal is simply defined as a method of thinking, and not its more fundamental meaning, which I proposed.
My goal is simply to express in my lifetime my views on everything… I do not feel I can change the world. I do not feel I can simply approach every human I encounter and explain to them why I believe my opinions to be correct and all conceivable dissenting opinions to be wrong. I will just express myself in my own way one day and that will be it… I created an account on this website more or less randomly for me because I was recommended going here once, a while ago.
I do not believe that “stress” in itself is something to be considered when it comes to one’s method of forcing the world to tend to the end they want to… I will explain what I mean. Please excuse any possible argument by assertion fallacies henceforth… converting everything to E-Prime is tiring but I do believe opinions have to actually be defended to be rational… If i ever simply assert that I believe something is true that is a mistake, as i meant to rationalize its breadth in its entirety to believe it has the capacity to be defended and inherently rebut all conceivable dissenting arguments...
Obviously, the human’s understanding of rationality is a consequence of themselves, to some extent. That is not to say that rationality so defined is entirely a consequence of the human and that the human literally created a portion of this universe that retains the properties of “rationality”… What I mean is, humans appear to feel emotion, and humans appear to correlate their understanding of the concepts of “good” and “evil” to what they perceive to be positive and negative emotion, respectively. Fundamentally, every human who retains the standard properties of the human lives through their own emotionality and their idea of good and evil is founded on that very thing.
Ugh… I just realized if I expound my philosophy any further I will be affirming for the first time since posting here my opinions which many will probably disagree with but basically I think that “stress” if “stress” is defined as pain(negative emotion) entirely in the head, meaning it is simply perception, ascribing emotion to certain things and feeling pain as a result, it is entirely a consequence of perception and can be manipulated to become pleasure… Perhaps it will be a certain iteration of masochism, and perhaps actually enduring perceived stress in reality will have consequences on the outside world as distinguished from your own psyche, possibly prompting an entire lifestyle change but “stress” should be irrelevant if its properties can just be totally changed with a different opinion, in my opinion.
When it comes to me, I believe so strongly that all who disagree with me is wrong that it seems extremely unnecessary to saturate my believing their being wrong with something else in an attempt to make me cope with my own emotionality. I believe there are other ways to cope with oneself than compromising on their own beliefs. I just correlate things to good or evil freely, at face value. I really wouldn’t make progress insofar as inciting a revolution is concerned by tolerating what I believe to be wrong, either. Perhaps by “goals” you mean something other than forcing the world to tend to its most rational end as you perceive it.
About your last sentence, I don’t believe in manipulating via anything other than argument to entice others to do as you wish… If it is something less than true reason to think, which I believe can only be conveyed via argument of some sort, it will be blind conformity, and any society or standard based on that is doomed to conceive notions as worthless as the one it was founded on, making it inferior to what it could and I believe should be. Also, it’s interesting that misanthropes are drawn to reason. I kind of expected it but I’ve had bad experiences with self-proclaimed misanthropes retaining the human property I hate, rendering their sub-ostracization asinine in my eyes… I probably rambled a lot in this post, sorry. I don’t know what type of reply I would expect to this if any. Thanks for reading if you did.
Possibly I don’t understand your situation (“devolved” doesn’t make sense to me except as Star Trek syence, a word I just invented based on the name SyFy. It could be a more polite version of ‘syfyces’.)
But I find it useful to remind myself that humans have no evolutionary reason to be perfectly rational. I tell myself that if any future I hope for comes to pass, the people there will see us (at the present time) as particularly foolish children who, rather horribly, age and die before growing up.
Sorry, I suppose I misused the word “devolve”… I’ve seen others use it as I have in my post here so I thought it was okay, but I suppose not. Perhaps they misused it, and if so I should not be tolerating the arbitrary and blatant misuse of words. What I meant by that word though was simply falling in stature. My using the word was to express that I believed humans have fallen in stature to the point that they cannot fall in stature anymore, and that the humans who roam the earth today will continue to breed and forge the world they want without changing very much in the next few generations of human if ever.
I just realized this site has a quoting feature. That makes responding to posts SO much easier...
Yes… I believe the same thing. One does not have to provide to anything a rational reason to copulate, and to breed. One does not need to provide a rational reason to anything to live, to kill, to, force the world to tend to the end they want or anything. Humans appear to simply do. Naturally, through generations of the human simply doing, and doing as they please, they have perhaps become incapable of actually questioning whether or not simply doing is right, but what do I know? This is just a theory, and not one I can prove with sheer logic. Even if I fancied doing so it would be a waste of time… It would be far worth my effort to simply deduce and affirm what it means to be right, and what it means to be wrong. Whether or not the human has the capacity to truly be rational and what caused rationality and being human to be mutually exclusive if they are can be questioned later...
I self-describe as a rationalist and I don’t like humans that much at all. Don’t know how common this is.
I like humans well enough when
-I can have a sensible interaction with them
-Or, they are willing to accommodate my needs with needing an explanation for everything
-Or, if I can manage their irrationality with a strategy that has a low cost to myself
Otherwise, I don’t like humans very much or at all. Maybe disappointed? I wouldn’t say hate (though the thought does come up).
I have been depressed. I’ve learned to deal with it, and I don’t feel I’m depressed now, though I am probably at risk for depression.
Mostly I try to do things for myself. And to put myself in a position where I won’t depend on any individual human for anything vital, and to have resources for as much self-reliance as possible.
[Do you self-identify as a misanthrope:]{yes}{no}{just show me the results}