how do you separate dysphoria/dysmorphia from objective reality by yourself without having to ask third parties weird questions that scream "im a loser with severe bdd"? ive tried going outside more and it keeps me grounded but not enough to stop making me believe i look like shit
Impossible. Just try to go cold turkey without reassurance as long as possible. Find some other grounding for your self worth. Think of people who look like shit that you still admire. Worked for me. I'm still bdd but that's because committing is hard.
>>45170246Why would you admire people who look like shit? I don't respect people who don't respect themselves
facts are objective, but the picture they paint of reality is always open to interpretation because the causal chain is never complete. also the idea of how a person looks "objectively" doesn't really work bc, if you're talking about attractiveness, someone else is always required to judge your appearance, and if you're not talking about attractiveness, why do you care? the trees, the wind in them and on the sea, the bugs and birds, the deer in the forest: they don't pay any attention to your looks
>>45170255Idk, because they make great art, strides in science and thought or something? Vapid faggot
>>45170271And they can't be bothered to use their success and the tons of money they make from it to make themselves look good? Yeah, I don't respect that
>>45170263Retarded phil undergrad take, could've saved a lot of time just saying that there's nothing objective about attractiveness.
>>45170285>>45170293Do you want to get over your BDD or not
>>45170301I dont have bdd. I want to look normal and attractive.
>>45170263lol no im pretty sure objectivity is still objective even in absence of a SUBJECT (key word!!!), ofc this doesnt apply to beauty standards and sheit
>>45170237I've genuinely started avoiding any reflective surfaces outside of my bathroom mirror lest I fall for pic related.
>>45170309Just post the unsee link already and get your attention faggot
>>45170327I don't want attention. I have never posted an image of myself here in my life, and never will.
>>45170293suck my dick faggot>>45170310>objectivity is still objective in the absence of a subjecti am a correlationist
>>45170351>pseud is an ideology shopperwho couldve seen it coming
>>45170351Laaaaarp.
>>45170237Learn to do makeup, skincare.
>>45170366it's a simply way to express why i disagree with you. i notice you've fixated on the word choice rather than providing arguments against correlationism
>>45170323lol i feel called out i feel i look good when in a front facing strong light and terrible everywhere else is my bdd just me being stupid?
>>45170385>DEBATE ME and my ad hoc bullshitthanks for reminding me retards unironically spend years reading other richer retards writing about their ramblings and trying to make the world fit their conclusions pilled out of their asses instead od studying the world first and then coming to conclusions from thatmarx was so right when calling philosophy religion applied unto thought fr
>>45170372when you come up with a cohesive object-oriented ontology, please let me know. i would love it. i see why the speculative realists dislike correlationism but their idea of discovering new primary substances just seems like a rationalist regression to me
>>45170423>studying the world first and then coming to conclusions from thatan idea invented by the EMPIRICIST PHILOSOPHERS from whom einstein and bohr are directly descended. you fucking illiterate
>>45170425friendly reminder scientists do not even need philosophy of science to do research
>>45170441>philosophy is just like.... when you think maaaanno way someone can allegedly read so much and end up this retarded, right?
>>45170463go read the men who founded modern science, and see if they hold philosophy in as much contempt as your ignorant 20 year-old ass. einstein literally credits his concept of relativity to schopenhauer
>>45170441Holy shit, do you seriously believe without Aristotle science wouldn't exist or that the scientific process has remained the same for millennia? I hate liberals and their Big Boy theory so fucking much.
>>45170477>aristotle was an empiricisti'm talking about hume, and kant, to the extent to which his critical idealism would never have existed were it not for hume's empiricism. the idea of intersubjective scientific consensus was in fact invented by immaneual kant in the first critique
>>45170476sick of seeing science described as a system lol, as if its something a philosopher just sat down one day and dreamed up. funnily enough the same thing happens with politics thanks to midwitsdescribing epochs or movements or historical developments this way implies theyre floating in an empty space that occasionally has the imposed gravity of a new 'framework' pull them down lmaolife is way too short to waste time with retarded academic philosophers
>>45170522>sick of seeing science described as a system lol, as if its something a philosopher just sat down one day and dreamed upagain, even your use of the word "science" to describe the project is a coinage of enlightenment philosophers. in early days (those of aristotle, for instance) the project was referred to as "natural philosophy". the distinction between science and philosophy was created by philosophers, not scientists. kant wrote the first critique to show that pure reason (and by extension, philosophy) cannot attain to true science. even in shitting on philosophy you're parroting philosophers without realizing it
>>45170496That's even funnier. You mean the guy who argued about the obligation of telling Nazis if a Jew is hiding in your house? Thanks man I'll pass, I'd rather deal with real life and not made-up irrelevant shit.This whole argument feels like saying Darwin's theory of evolution is the cause of evolution itself - except even more stupid, because you're talking about science needing philosophy, laughable by itself, and then having such a vague definition of philosophy as to render it meaningless.
>>45170568>Thanks man I'll passlooks like you get to pass on modern scientific method, then. this is an absurd standard. a good artist can still make a bad work as a good thinker can still produce a bad thought
>>45170496>the idea of intersubjective scientific consensus was in fact invented by immaneual kant in the first critiquenow youre just making shit up lmao. if you genuinely believe reality conforms to ideas and not the other way around, or that history happens because some special chosen people thought hard enough youre am honest to god childish mental subhuman. PLEASE tell me you didnt go to uni just to end up like this lmfao
>… philosophy, far from abolishing the dogmas of theology, only restored and mediates them through the negation of rationalism.
>>45170615>now youre just making shit up lmaoironically, this is a historical fact. read the first critique>>45170638marx was a young HEGELIAN. the concept of the dialectic comes from hegel's immanent critique, which gave birth to fichte's dialectic. let's see the whole essay btw. marx is notoriously misquoted (e.g. the "opiate of the masses" debacle)
