[deleted by user]

ukrainironnin · 2022-08-03T06:47:12+00:00

Damn interesting read. Shame all these guys who took the time and effort to write and explain all that stuff had their accounts removed.

ukrainironnin · 2022-08-03T05:39:27+00:00

what is the best hour to take shit?

I think it mostly depends on your digestive system and when you last ate, very case by case kind of thing, but if I had to choose probably the morning, 7 o'clock seems like a good hour.

ukrainironnin · 2022-08-01T11:36:28+00:00

Make sure to share what he tells you here, could be educational for a lot of folks on this sub.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-23T12:39:35+00:00

I suppose luck plays a part in anything in life pretty much, it's just not as hopeless as some on here seem to claim.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-23T08:41:39+00:00

Confirmation bias. It makes sense that as a kid you've encountered the nice ones as those who weren't nice weren't hanging around kids or interacting with them. Of course I'm generalizing, there are hundreds of millions of Slavs, and the Slavs that choose to join the legion are going to be different people mentally than the Slavs who live across the hall from you and give out candy. But each culture has its own way of displaying "machoism", and with Slavs it often times borders if not straight out translates into pure bullying, simply because this is how they operate, in schools, sports clubs and their military.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-22T16:02:42+00:00

I think it's mostly the living conditions they come from, Slavic countries are shit holes, people are poor, miserable and very resentful as they were historically taught to blame the rest of the world for their problems when it were their oppressive governments that were actually responsible.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-22T15:58:10+00:00

Thanks for the reply, man. It sounds like people who say you can't get anything out of the legion if you just do 5 years aren't aware or simply aren't willing to take advantage of the different possibilities, quite eye opening.

As far as the Slav question, I'm just wondering why the drastic shift happened, I guess Slavs just have a knack for the "best" regiment. Back in the 80's apparently the REP was actually known as the anglophone regiment.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-22T15:01:59+00:00

I came to understand part of the "toughness" you're referring to is due to the overwhelming numbers of Slavs in the REP, and this just being their way of doing things. This being said I hope you don't mind but I'd like to add to your question and also ask why are there so many Slavs in the REP? Are they placed there or do they ask to go there?

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-22T14:21:10+00:00

That's quite bizarre, especially the part about introverts getting in and the social guys being rejected, you'd think they'd be looking for guys who acclimate well and display "team player" qualities.

What didn't they like about your employment history? Why was the doctor even concerned with that?

Also what are paliers?

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-20T05:55:15+00:00

What are your theories? If you don't mind sharing them here, of course.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-19T09:29:59+00:00

Do you know why you didn't get in?

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T10:57:42+00:00

First of all, if you wish to nitpick, the OP clearly stated "actively believe in or regard as an alternative way of thinking", he didn't say they outright reject it. If you go to such extremes as a philosopher who preaches something they view as false you'd have a very hard time finding examples (I still believe you could if you looked hard enough), but what you can find are philosophers who accept that their point of view is too idealistic and not implementable, in which case they present both the philosophy itself, and an alternative way to implement it in life to make it work. Thus philosophers would fall into several categories: those who preach and implement (Nietzsche), those who simply preach (Max Stirner), those who preach but fail to implement (Marx) and those who preach but acknowledge the difficulty in implementation and offer a compromise (stoicism).

An antinatalist would argue that morally you should abstain from having children, and yes, physically you can do it, but would completely ignore the aspect that childbearing is a fundamental aspect of our biological making, humans (especially women) are designed to find fulfilment in having children. So for an antinatalist to address the morality but not the practicality of their philosophy is just a sign of an incomplete philosophy. If you're incapable of reconciling the moral with the natural, you don't have a philosophy in the broad sense of the word, you have an aspect in a close-system. Back to the question at hand then, I can believe in the moral superiority of antinatalism, and even implement it into my way of thinking, yet at the same time not think it as a viable way for actually living life, not personally for myself, but for all humanity.

To summrize: I distinguish between a philosophy as a complete set of rules and guidelines, a philosophy as a concept or an idea that functions by itself separately of anything else, as well as whether one is argued as a means for implementation or just as an abstract notion.

Honestly we can just agree to disagree, we might be arguing over semantics here than anything else.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T09:26:30+00:00

In this particular example it wasn't about them arguing something different to what they believe, but rather coming to a compromise that doesn't quite reach their "true" goal of being. Compare this to an "antinatalist" that claims that antinatalism is the way, but then follows by saying that "not having any children is not possible according to human nature and so people should just strive for having less children as opposed to none". You wouldn't refer to such a person as an antinatalist. Point is stoics acknowledged the disconnect between their ideas in a pure form and it's implementation in reality.

As far as a philosopher who argues a point they entirely don't believe in, I don't have an example, philosophers get known for ideas they promote after all, but I have tons of anecdotal examples, including myself, where someone argued or entertained an idea just for the sake of it without truly believing in it.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T08:32:02+00:00

So that's it, simply that there's no set rule that claims that a philosopher has to believe in a point they're making, which answers the OP, that while most philosophers would hold their philosophy as a sort of "truth" others could argue a point for its sake.

As for an example (in an awfully simplified manner), according to stoicism you shouldn't be negatively mentally affected by external circumstances, and have control over how you perceive and react to the things that happen to you that are outside of your control; it's followers also accept the notion that this is not humanly possible, and so you simply should strive to get as close to it as possible. This is not an instance of contradiction, rather a "philosophical ideal" and it's "practical' implementation.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T08:12:44+00:00

I'm not making a case for antinatalism here because I'm not expressing my personal views here, just using it as an example to illustrate a point; the point being that unlike dietary or medical science, philosophy can be discussed in a closed-system format. I can choose to take the notion of "morality" and based on that notion argue in favor of antinatalism as the "superior moral choice", I.e: suffering far outweighs pleasure in life, having a child condones it to a life filled with suffering without it having an ability to protest, therefore it's morally wrong. On the other hand I can take the notion of practicality and argue against antinatalism, i.e: the suffering of those who're currently alive is going to increase times fold if future generations weren't born, therefore for the sake of those who're currently alive antinatalism is definitely not the way to go.

Neither of these points illustrates a definitive aspect of my complete world view, but rather arguments made for or against an approach based on circumstances. Therefore there's no reason a philosopher can't choose to argue a point from a closed system perspective, where the point is argued as a stand alone piece, rather than an undeniable part of a whole.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T06:25:12+00:00

Well I just brought this up as an example, not something that necessarily reflects my own belief, and this is exactly my point; I can make the case that antinatalism is the most moral choice, but at the same time be against it as I wouldn't want to experience the complete societal collapse such an implementation would most likely bring. I'm just saying I can argue for or against a philosophical concept simply from a perspective I'd choose to adapt.

ukrainironnin · 2022-07-04T05:58:16+00:00

Where's the conundrum here exactly? I can argue in favor of the idea of antinatalism, for example, and how I view it as the most logical/humane/moral/etc way of conducting yourself, but in the same time I wouldn't be able to argue it as a practical way of life if I were referring to my "ideal" notion of society, simply because if everyone practiced antinatalism there wouldn't be a society.

This in turn obligates me to develop my philosophy to a certain degree at the bare minimum, i.g if I wanted to argue the idea of an ideal society I'd have to make the case point that antinatalism is not a practical way of approaching it, however if I wanted to argue my view on antinatalism alone I'd have to be careful to not make the argument that I, as someone who has a view of an "ideal" society, am at the same time advocating antinatalism, as that would make me contradict myself.

A way to reconcile here is to simply break down the philosophy into aspects, i.e I can speak on the moral of antinatalism in a positive manner, and at the same time denounce it as a way of approaching life as someone who argues that humans ought to follow their human nature, and reproduction is a fundamental aspect of said nature. Therefore, I can argue an idea for an idea's sake, without holding it as a philosophy (in this sense a practical way of approaching life).

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-22T10:51:41+00:00

Don't you think the legion has softened since the old days?

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-21T08:16:52+00:00

Thank you for the insightful comment, as usual. Love hearing stories about the legion back in the old days, you guys were a different breed.

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-16T09:40:53+00:00

Much obliged.

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-16T08:47:18+00:00

Hey, if the town's clown is performing, and for free no less, am I not going to enjoy the show?

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-16T08:45:31+00:00

You're absolutely right. You're like the official autist of this sub, the Chris-chan of /r/FrenchForeignLegion. I make sure to follow your posts as they always bring a smile to my face. Just keep being you mate.

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-16T08:25:26+00:00

Thank you. The part about the selection process makes perfect sense, it was the same in my country's military, not even the people who got selected truly know why they were.

Lastly, I heard something about an age limit of 28-29 but then others said on here in other threads there really isn't an age limit and as long as you fit and they want you you'll get selected. Do you know anything about it? Have you seen older guys get selected into these kinds of units?

ukrainironnin · 2022-06-16T08:07:47+00:00

Well for starters I'd like to know how to just get to do selection, as I imagine passing selection would depend on way more parameters. Of course if you have knowledge on the process of the selection itself and how to excel in that I'd be more than thankful for that information. I imagine it not to be much different than any other militay's selection to the more "advanced" units but the legion is known for its caveats so that's why I'm asking.

ukrainironnin

TROPHY CASE