Chapter 7 - why I hate the french

I think philosophy's pretenious. You would've all heard the quote "I think, therefore I am", famously said by French philosopher and the father of modern western philosophy, Descartes.

Now I hate the french. To me they embody all the things I hate about the upper classes. They tend to be self-righteous, vain and oblivious. Considering this, it's no suprise the philosophy produced by the french thinkers are in a similar vein. Descartes' trying to ask how can we be sure about anything, how can we trust our senses, how can we come to conclusions when there's gaps in our knowledge, in essence alluding to a greater and deeper truth inaccessible to humans. This doesn't help anyone. You asking yourself do I exist, then coming to the conclusion I do exist because I have the capacity to think is inherently a moot point. It's some 1 + 1 = 2 type shit. I remember doing psychadelics for the first time too buddy.

Pseudo-intellectuals mop this stuff up as if they've stumbled upon something uniquely profound however I cannot help but view this as an example of mental gynmastics. Thought exercises, who's sole purpose is to impress and confuse others by exemplifying your capacity for pointless lines of questioning. To me it's akin to a gym bro. Rigorous in his exercises, over inflating his muscles and ego but incapable of running a mile. There's no practicability in his philosophy. You can't provide evidence in support or in denial of his claims. If you can't falsify nor prove his claims, what water does it hold in the real world? If you proved we're in an illusion what could we do to escape the facade of reality? Only the opposing position has meaning. Good job lil bro you proved we live in a shared reality. As if that wasn't quite clear before. Questioning for the sake of questioning is doubt and doubt is the root of fear and fear is a poison to the mind.

I prefer eastern philosophy. It's simplistic. It's infallible. It's self-evident. All you need to learn to understand 4000 years of thinking is Yin and Yang. This idea condenses down the very essence of eastern philosophy down to a singular concept that's easily comprehensible. The idea that things are in a balance. That where there is light, darkness is inevitable with the 2 being inseparable and essential to one another. That things are simply 2 sides of the same coin. To not reject the Yang in favour of the Yin or vice versa. We view murder as evil. In nature murder is inescapable. Whether you're a herbivore or a carnivore, only through death can life be sustained. We live in an imbalanced society. A society that rejects it's own shadow despite it's unquestionable existence. Our darkness is something to be understood and harnessed. It's not something we can cover our eyes and pretend as if it doesn't exist.

While I respect what Descartes was ultimately trying to convey, it's torturous living in constant self-doubt. In order for us to extract value from his arguments it needs to be reframed in support of skepticism towards dogmatic thinking. To question the religious, scientific and ideological fanaticism we've been taught. Instead of having a skewered lens others hold for us to view the world through, to open our minds and eyes. To understand the world's created in our minds as much as it's grounded in reality. To understand that perceptions shape what we see and that it's not necessarily the truth. But the fact that such a profound truth is so deeply hidden with his ideas and embellished with word salads proves that even he wasn't clear in what he wanted to convey to the world. Maybe it was his limitations as a communicator rather than as a thinker.