| Yes. The purpose is for me to see what you pick, and translate it to a specific personality system later. +Alexandre Dumas Justice and revenge, honor and loyalty, and the capacity for personal transformation in the face of adversity. +Anton Chekhov Empathetic. The human experience is a mix of pain and absurdity. Not preaching moral lessons or imposing easy solutions. +Aristippus The goal of life is to experience as much pleasure as possible in the present moment. The pleasure of the individual takes precedence over social considerations. +Epicurus A sustainable life of peace and contentment. Friendship and community are essential for happiness. +Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Individual freedom and self-expression but recognized the need for social responsibility and contributing to the common good. +Lucrezia Borgia Passionate affairs. +Al-Ghazali Inner experiences are the ultimate path to certainty and personal fulfillment. Intellect and physical desires by themselves fail to bring true happiness. +Albert Einstein "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Being useful to others is more important than achieving personal gain. Talent comes not from exceptional intellect but from "passionate curiosity." +Anna Akhmatova Truth is absolutely important. Despise betrayal, falsehood, and deceit. Accept suffering as a path toward new understanding. +Blaise Pascal Reason and intuition are crucial for forming beliefs, but faith provides a direct connection to spiritual truth that reason alone cannot grasp. +Hans Christian Andersen Endure great hardship but remain hopeful and resilient. Innocence and pure love are forces capable of overcoming evil. +Socrates People act wrongly out of ignorance, not malice. Seeking truth and practicing self-examination is the path to wisdom. +Alexander Pushkin Embrace life with all its paradoxes. Maintain personal honor. Reflection, individual freedom. +Boris Pasternak Live life fully and passionately rather than just preparing for it. Embrace both joys and sorrows. +Jean-Jacques Rousseau Society creates problems like private property and social hierarchies that cause people to become unequal and competitive. +Lao Tzu Trust the natural flow of life, letting go of control, and find contentment through simplicity and selfless acts. +Napoleon Bonaparte Success comes from audacity, boldness in execution, and perseverance through setbacks. +Plato The physical world we experience is imperfect and changing. Use reason, rather than relying on five senses. +Aleksandr Tvardovsky Courage, humor, and resilience. Truth in human experience should take precedence over political ideology. +Aurelius Augustine Evil is not a substance but a corruption of good. True wisdom is found in focusing on God rather than fleeting worldly pleasures. +Leo Tolstoy Find life's meaning through spiritual awareness, a life of simplicity, and nonviolent resistance. +Louis-Alexandre Berthier Logistical precision, loyalty, and subordination. +Nikolai Bukharin Society needs to maintain a state of balance, or equilibrium, to survive. +Vladimir Lenin Pragmatic, focused on seizing and retaining power. Revolution, not gradual reform. My philosophy is that of Aristippus. |
  |
| I dont read philosophies but im curious about this personality system. My philosophy is boris pasternak |
| Going by the quote only I choose Aristippus |
[โ๐ฎโโโ๐ฒโ โ๐ฆโ โ๐ตโโ๐ทโโ๐ดโโ๐ซโโ๐ชโโ๐ธโโ๐ธโโ๐ฎโโ๐ดโโ๐ณโโ๐ฆโโ๐ฑโ โ๐ญโโ๐บโโ๐ธโโ๐งโโ๐ฆโโ๐ณโโ๐ฉโโ๐ดโ โ๐จโโ๐ดโโ๐ฑโโ๐ฑโโ๐ชโโ๐จโโ๐นโโ๐ดโโ๐ทโ] |
| any reason why you left out schopenhauer? |
XMGA030Sep 26, 4:57 AM
Reply to Szczelajo
Going by the quote only I choose Aristippus
| @Szczelajo Aristippus is FLVE. Detailed information: If this is not you, go back to the drawing board and pick a different person. Deeply involved in the physical world. This refers to a strong focus on material possessions, sensory pleasures, comfort, physical health, and personal space. Materialistic confidence. They are confident in their relationship with the material world. Not easily swayed, but open to new information. While confident in their logical abilities, they are not rigid and will engage with others to refine their understanding. Either silently ponder or react aggressively to criticism, attempting to prove people wrong to boost their self-esteem. Adaptable but potentially lacking deep emotional connection. Because they are so open to outside emotions, they can sometimes appear to adapt their emotional style to others without a strong internal motivation. Their occasional bursts of intense emotion are usually brief and quickly dissipate. |
|
| I'll go with Pascal because he's the most Christian. Plato was also a great influence on Saints Augustine and Dionysius to the point an eastern tradition claims he was saved when Jesus went to Hades so he's cool too. |
| MEA·MENTVLA·INGENS·EST |
Reply to XMGA030
any reason why you left out schopenhauer?
| @XMGA030 Because the creator of the system only chose the 24 people mentioned as being the best avatars for the specific personality types, which are hidden. |
|
| Absolutely Aristippus if you realize that's the best one of them all. |
| I CELEBRATE myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. |
| @IpreferEcchi Well "the creator of the system" should study personalities more if he thinks they're all represented by only those idiots. |
| Alexander Pushkin, I guess. No Machiavelli for me to choose, hah |
Reply to XMGA030
@IpreferEcchi
Well "the creator of the system" should study personalities more if he thinks they're all represented by only those idiots.
Well "the creator of the system" should study personalities more if he thinks they're all represented by only those idiots.
| @XMGA030 They're not represented "only" by them. They're the only ones that were on the creator's mind. They are the first ones that were jumped to. |
|
| I prefer Hans Christian Anderson... |
| Out of those options I'd say Plato and Lenin |
| Anton Chekhov seems to be the closest for me. |
| Can I Still Go To Heaven If I Kill Myself? |
| It's a rather difficult choice for me since i feel like i could take some bits of wisdom from every one of these philosophers/authors/scientists,but let's say Lao Tzu and Pascal(can't choose just one:D) |
| I can't support any of these wholeheartedly based on such short summary. IpreferEcchi said: +Jean-Jacques Rousseau Society creates problems like private property and social hierarchies that cause people to become unequal and competitive. ^This on the other hand is absolutely cringe. |
| The meaning of life for me is enjoying it until you die, there is nothing we can really do about death. Pleasure and satisfaction are the only thing that matters, the rest comes down to what has to be done to grant the priviledge of getting those things, which is actually the hardest part bcs money is fundamentally what determines how much someone will be able to enjoy themselves the longer they live (sure, the more money the better but being a millionaire is more than enough to live at the peak of experiences). Ofc, translating that to a realistic view for a common person that lacks money such as me, that would mean an stable good income, not many taxing work hours and an active sexual life, so i can enjoy hobbies, eat and drink what i like and satisfy my lewd desires. Being able to do all of that on an stable and safe basis is what i consider a happy life. Why being rich would be way better? Bcs i would spend less time of my life studying and working and fully to my own satisfaction (increasing the means to get that for me as well through the priviledges money can provide in all means, which include less stress and more ways to treat my own health, further increasing my life duration to the best aka also increasing my continuous physical and mental pleasure that i would dedicate myself to experiencing being rich). Doing what i enjoy in all the senses of the word, very comfortable physically, engaging with what excites and satiates me and being myself. A life centered around maiximizing all sorts of pleasure is not sustainable without the means to live it on an stable basis throgh money with health and freedom. My biggest fear in life is of missing out. I value the existence of humans bcs if one thinks about it, all we enjoy and are able to is due to humans, which means they are meaningful (one of the examples of humans creating meaning is this site. Look at how much anime and manga has been made and how many artists and producers and workers worked on them, things that make life more pleasant and better). I value the appreciation of the excitement gotten from an hedonistic lifestyle, though i dont live such a life since i am quite low financially and frustrated. This is my only meaning in life really. Aristippus is the the one that encapsulate what i think the most. To cope with enjoying the little i have, i also use Nietzsche´s philosophy of the eternal return... so if i will continue living a life where i will remain frustrated, envious and lacking and if this life where to be repeated again, in the same way every moment, i would want to atleast enjoy what i can with every time i spend on it so that repetition wouldnt sour as much as it would if i accepted to approach my life merely through the negative perspective that i inevitably am forced to see it by. Essentially to say yes to life, even in frustration. That is the purpose in life that makes the most sense to me in face of the nothingness, horror and mystery that life broadly is. I like Lao Tzu there too, i appreciate asian philosophy a lot (accepting the flow of life is essential in an awareness sense). Southeast asia and east asia. Buddhism is the religion i like the most, though i would not be a buddhist i greatly, appreciate it. Epicurus is nice too, the Alexandre dumas one i agree that are important. Even if one has a preference for certain philosophy, mixing up the value one can get from elements from opposite ones is useful. |
INoLuvSep 26, 6:47 PM
Reply to JaniSIr
I can't support any of these wholeheartedly based on such short summary.
^This on the other hand is absolutely cringe.
IpreferEcchi said:
+Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Society creates problems like private property and social hierarchies that cause people to become unequal and competitive.
+Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Society creates problems like private property and social hierarchies that cause people to become unequal and competitive.
^This on the other hand is absolutely cringe.
| @JaniSIr Don't tell me you believe in Capitalism and big Corps and their fairy tales of free and equal competition for everyone. |
| I guess I would have to say I'm the most like Albert Einstein. You know, just without all the brains. XD |
 |
Reply to Exhumatika
@JaniSIr Don't tell me you believe in Capitalism and big Corps and their fairy tales of free and equal competition for everyone.
| @Exhumatika That's one hell of a loaded question without a simple answer... It's not that I believe them, but that I would like to see their lies enforced. Like a self regulating free market is a pretty neat idea, and Corporate America is sort of a perfect example on all the pitfalls of it. The ideal free market makes assumptions that are straight out of fairy tales, so you need to patch those with government regulations, but then that's also an absolute landmine, so you have to patch those, down the infinite descent... If the societal incentives are meritocratic enough and enough people are willing to play nice to punish those that don't, we should be able to have nice things. Socialism is absolutely not the answer to your woes, we had that over here for 50 years, it kind of sucked based on second hand accounts. Hungary was pretty far from the core USSR, so we avoided the worst of it too. Though it had a few advantages, like the 2008 financial crisis would not be possible, but overall not recommended. The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work. |
Reply to JaniSIr
@Exhumatika That's one hell of a loaded question without a simple answer...
It's not that I believe them, but that I would like to see their lies enforced. Like a self regulating free market is a pretty neat idea, and Corporate America is sort of a perfect example on all the pitfalls of it. The ideal free market makes assumptions that are straight out of fairy tales, so you need to patch those with government regulations, but then that's also an absolute landmine, so you have to patch those, down the infinite descent...
If the societal incentives are meritocratic enough and enough people are willing to play nice to punish those that don't, we should be able to have nice things.
Socialism is absolutely not the answer to your woes, we had that over here for 50 years, it kind of sucked based on second hand accounts. Hungary was pretty far from the core USSR, so we avoided the worst of it too. Though it had a few advantages, like the 2008 financial crisis would not be possible, but overall not recommended.
The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work.
It's not that I believe them, but that I would like to see their lies enforced. Like a self regulating free market is a pretty neat idea, and Corporate America is sort of a perfect example on all the pitfalls of it. The ideal free market makes assumptions that are straight out of fairy tales, so you need to patch those with government regulations, but then that's also an absolute landmine, so you have to patch those, down the infinite descent...
If the societal incentives are meritocratic enough and enough people are willing to play nice to punish those that don't, we should be able to have nice things.
Socialism is absolutely not the answer to your woes, we had that over here for 50 years, it kind of sucked based on second hand accounts. Hungary was pretty far from the core USSR, so we avoided the worst of it too. Though it had a few advantages, like the 2008 financial crisis would not be possible, but overall not recommended.
The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work.
| @JaniSIr Socialism and capitalism, both systems, have long since exhausted themselves. It's time to move to a three-circuit planned economy. |
JaniSIr said: The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work. You call it "free money", but in reality it's a trade-off: it costs far less to provide basic support than to deal with higher crime, homelessness and instability. Every society has people on the margins - so the real question is how you handle them. Beating them with a stick or pretending they don't exist only creates bigger problems. If education and social structures fail to turn everyone into self-sufficient citizens, the alternatives are limited: build walls and ghettos, or live side by side with outcasts and pretend shit smells orchids, or try to upbring them a bit rather than punish, so *maybe* they integrate (or their children will, at least). PS: Terms check: when you say "free money" and "socialism" here, I assume you don't mean Lenin's categorical "seize and divide: factories to workers, lands to peasants", but more speaking of rather capitalist states with some social heavy lifting, right? |
| Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. |
Reply to Exhumatika
@JaniSIr Socialism and capitalism, both systems, have long since exhausted themselves.
It's time to move to a three-circuit planned economy.
It's time to move to a three-circuit planned economy.
| @Exhumatika I have no idea what that is, only got some AI gibberish for the "three circuit" part, but planned economy is a pretty bad solution without some sort of omniscient trusted third party, which we won't ever have. Like someone messes up the plan, and now everyone starves, great... |
Reply to Exhumatika
@JaniSIr Socialism and capitalism, both systems, have long since exhausted themselves.
It's time to move to a three-circuit planned economy.
It's time to move to a three-circuit planned economy.
| @Exhumatika What's that? Do you mean the third political position like fascism and natsoc? Or like Dugin's fourth political theory? |
Reply to LoveYourSmile
JaniSIr said:
The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work.
The people for socialism just want free money, that's it. They'd probably spend it on status symbols too, like a useless college degree and a massive Labubu collection, which is incredibly ironic. And free money doesn't exist, you just end up putting cost on people that actually work.
You call it "free money", but in reality it's a trade-off: it costs far less to provide basic support than to deal with higher crime, homelessness and instability. Every society has people on the margins - so the real question is how you handle them. Beating them with a stick or pretending they don't exist only creates bigger problems.
If education and social structures fail to turn everyone into self-sufficient citizens, the alternatives are limited: build walls and ghettos, or live side by side with outcasts and pretend shit smells orchids, or try to upbring them a bit rather than punish, so *maybe* they integrate (or their children will, at least).
PS: Terms check: when you say "free money" and "socialism" here, I assume you don't mean Lenin's categorical "seize and divide: factories to workers, lands to peasants", but more speaking of rather capitalist states with some social heavy lifting, right?
| @LoveYourSmile I'm not entirely against helping people, shit happens to everyone, but it's really more a question of how much it takes to get people to be self sufficient again, and the people maliciously abusing your good will have that at infinite resources, so those need to be cut off. Enabling bad behaviour is a bad thing, like how do you think people get so fat they can't walk to get food? Same principle here. Plus, the people whom you tax to subsidize the malicious actors might also struggle themselves... There are enough "real communism has never been tried before" tankies if you know where to look for them, so both are fine I suppose... |
Reply to NS2D
@Exhumatika What's that? Do you mean the third political position like fascism and natsoc? Or like Dugin's fourth political theory?
| @NS2D Book «ะัะธััะฐะปะป Pะพััะฐ» by Aleksandr Galushka: it needs to be read first because it is not just an economic theory, but it also has an investigation of the entire economy cycle all the way from the early 1900s. Also, this type of economy model mostly applies to my country, since it requires a lot of land territory and resources. But first, the big private corps must cease to exist, and all the privately owned monopolies as well. |
More topics from this board
» If you could bring any of your deceased pets back to life, would you do it?fleurbleue - Yesterday |
11 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
7 minutes ago |
|
» Believing Everything You Read Online ( 1 2 )LifelineByNature - Sep 16 |
67 |
by ElderNerd
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What's your opinion on AI? Either you like it or you don't. ( 1 2 )atl0pye - Sep 18 |
68 |
by LifelineByNature
»»
11 minutes ago |
|
» Are zoomers really more helpless with computers than millennials? ( 1 2 )fleurbleue - Sep 22 |
86 |
by LoveYourSmile
»»
17 minutes ago |
|
» What's the nastiest thing that ever happened to you?ElderNerd - Yesterday |
9 |
by ElderNerd
»»
32 minutes ago |