Why do people like the superficial Chad whose core philosophy is hedonism fueled by fake smiles and a short attention...

Why do people like the superficial Chad whose core philosophy is hedonism fueled by fake smiles and a short attention span?

bump out of pity

He's a dog and dogs are cute

Mr.Peanutbutter is not a Chadd. He's a dope who is trying to not be anything like his only "friend", Bojack

because they are as empty inside as he is.

That's who people like in real life as well.

Come on, Bojack isn't that bad.

Pretend to be happy, you will eventually believe your own lies.

Because Nihilism is a philosophy is faggots and pussies.

Because at the end of the day, he is still the most righteous and genuine of all the characters, even if it is all just a facade in order for him to hide his own fears, that being, his dread of boredom and loneliness.

Bojack is who we do not truly want to be, but admit we have more in common with than we like to admit.

Peanut Butter is who we know we should strive to be, but do not want to be, because it is had and seems like an act, which hurts our humanity, as well as our humility, as even Mr. Peanut Butter is seen putting on an act in order to hide his flaws, which, like the morale of each episode, is often open ended and conflicting to who we are as human beings.

>who we know we should strive to be, but do not want to be, because it is had and seems like an act, which hurts our humanity, as well as our humility

F-fuck... too real user.

Was that the impression that you got? His first two wives left him. Superficial, maybe. Chad? Nah.

Because no one likes a downer, jeez.

That's how it is in Hollywoo. Why do you think Nguyen doesn't fit in as well as everyone else?

People like dogs.

Mr. Peanutbutter is actually a pretty genuine person.

Damn dude

They're all terrible people but Mr. Peanut Butter tries to be a little more decent to others than the rest. It's an extremely fucking low bar to clear.

He hasn't ruined anyone's life or got anyone killed.

He's a nice guy. A genuinely nice guy too, arguably the only one in the whole show aside from that talentless guy they got to direct Secretariat.

...

Fucking Christ, user. I didn't need this spelled out for me.

You mean that catfish that pretty much ruined Bojack's dream role because Bojack did what he does best by fucking up?

...

>whose core philosophy is hedonism
If your values and beliefs about morality aren't based on hedonistic principal then you're a massive fucking moron and can fuck right off.

>he is still the most righteous and genuine of all the characters
Princess Carolyn is both more righteous and genuine than him, he's just a lot nicer.

Ironic that you make this post considering that hedonism is perhaps the least intellectually rigorous value system there is.

It is literally the only legitimate value system

Oh, so that's what he was.

Yup. He was a shitty director but mostly seemed like an alright guy. I think Bojack admitted as much himself.

If that were true then you would have succeeded in 'solving' philosophy but I have a strong suspicion you don't do any philosophical writing.

I'll show you something 'literally legitimate', bitch.

*unzups dick*

That's not how philosophy works. It's not like there's just one philosophy that's right and all the others are wrong, they're not in competition with each other. There are some specific philosophies on the same subject matter that are in conflict, but it's not like we're trying to figure out what the one true philosophy is.

That being said, any 'philosophy' on morality that isn't based in hedonistic values IS inherently stupid.


And I have actually done a small amount of philosophical writing.

Like, I'll grant you utilitarianism is extremely flawed, very flawed. There isn't any one philosophy on morality that I subscribe to, I don't think it's possible for there to be one, but if you have a moral philosophy that, at it's core, is rooted in something other than hedonism you can go to hell.

You just asserted there is only one 'literally legitimate value system' as if you found an objective truth which you can prove all value stems from. If you discovered such a thing you would have quite literally 'solved' philosophy in that you could literally prove objective morality.

For perspective, nobody has ever done this and if you had truly done such a thing you would have turned all of philosophy on its head and instantly become the most important thinker in the field which makes me quite curious as to why you haven't published your discovery.

I did not apply 'literally' to it's legitimateness, I applied 'literally' to the fact that it was the only value system that had any legitimacy to it.

In any case it doesn't matter, because I'm not actually asserting that I have proven that a philosophy on morality, an inconsistent, artificial construct that is literally impossible to truly define, is objectively true, I'm in a fucking thread on the comics and cartoons board of fucking Sup Forums, asserting my opinion that hedonism is the only core value system that's worth anything, and any morality system not based on hedonism at it's core is fucked.

Now I'm asserting that you are a massive autist, who gets in ridiculous arguments about semantics on fucking Sup Forums, putting forth the conjecture that you probably have a reddit account, and fedoralord jokes probably hit a bit close to home for you.

Peanut Butter is like an anti nihilist or something. He knows everything is meaningless but still makes the most of it

>Implying hedonism is inherently 'bad'
Saying hedonism is bad is like saying nihilism(acknowledgement that life have no point) or atheism(lack of faith in gods or religion) are also bad; misunderstanding the meaning and using it as a buzzword slander. Except hedonism is much more natural, and people (unless you are a actually a droid) strive to increase pleasure and leniency in their mortal lives; hence why taverns, clubs, bonfire parties, and so on have existed for thousands of years. If anything, you can lose yourself/mental-health without pleasure or stimuli.

>Because I'm not actually asserting that I have proven that a philosophy on morality
No shit sherlock.

Anyway hook me up with your philosophical writings. You got a google doc or something I can peruse?

She is a subcharacter. You might as well have said Wanda Pierce. Her character is also incredibly lonely and she ignores herself to help other people. Also how is she more righteous?

Bullshit. Watch how this plays out with her jew-rat boyfriend. He'll give her enough space and rope to hang herself with when Bojack comes whining and crying. She'll fuck her life up again without a second thought by jumping on Bojacks dick and 'go oh woe is me! Why am I destined for unhappiness!?" Because you cant love someone else unless you love yourself first and no amount of energy put into someone's else will fix yourself.

Not for the big proper paper I wrote, which actually didn't have much to do on morality. I first started writing it in high school I think, and only 'published' it in a short lived college newspaper/journal thing on the school's website. It should still be on my old college laptop, which I'll try to find, but that'll take a while.

It was mostly an examination on some of the more spiritual aspects of Buddhism (particularly reincarnation and it's relationship with karma) and reinterpreting them through a different philosophical lens. Essentially, using ship of theseus arguments (going down a sort of fourth-dimensionalism route) to make a case that objections are inherently arbitrary illusions created by the mind, including the self, and that all things perceived as objects are just part of one great fluid whole. Objects begin when they are perceived and end when they are no longer perceived, their physical matter flowing into and out of that state fluidly, with little correlation to a perceived beginning or ending. This being true for a person as much as any object.

The argument is made that reincarnation can be interpreted then as not the 'self' continuing on into a new life, but the illusion of the self shattering, and the person returning into the fluid, unintelligible mix of the universe. And that matter is brought into new forms and perceived to be new things, even perhaps a new person that perceives their self. Karma even plays into this, the more positivity that you put into the world, that will better your position in life when you are 'reborn' because your reincarnation is the incorporation into the world as a whole.

It's nothing particularly interesting or groundbreaking or anything, it's only like, 5 pages. I initially started writing it at a time when I was trying to decide if I considered myself a Buddhist, believing in many of the teachings but not the more spiritual aspects, and there are problems with it. Buddhism has a weird relationship with the self, and this still doesn't really gel with the spiritual aspects of Buddhism. It was more just supposed to be an interesting idea.

Even beyond that I don't agree with it anymore though, my thoughts on consciousness have changed since college, and I now concede that the self isn't just an illusion, I don't think an illusion can perceive itself, there's definitely something there that can perceive, and I have absolutely no idea what it is or how it works, which is honestly pretty terrifying to me. But then, really there's no interpretation of consciousness that I don't find terrifying on some level.

You realise Mr Peanutbutter isn't a jerk and is just dumb

1. He's a genuinely nice person.

2. He seems like a fun guy to hang with (as opposed to those boring nice people who are kind but bring nothing to the table).

3. Despite appearing to be outwardly stupid, its clear once you get to know him that he is actually fairly articulate and has given some thought to philosophy and the nature of life. He's not shallow.

4. He's rich but not cheap, he will happily invest in your fun ideas and spend money doing fun stuff with you.

5. All the other characters on the show who think that they are so enlightened and intelligent, but all their intelligence brings them is misery. Bojack's is only intelligent enough to feel depressed about his life choices, Diane is only intelligent enough to recognize injustice and then complain about them, Princess Carolyn is only intelligent enough to understand that her career obsession is probably unhealthy but that she has no other real choice for seeking happiness. Mr Peanut Butter knows his life choices are shallow but is okay with that because it brings him happiness, recognizes the injustices of the world but understands that focusing on them will only bring him misery, and seems to balance his career and personal life relatively well.

He's a good person!!! Tho I honestly have no idea if Jenny is real.

>Why do people like the superficial Chad whose core philosophy is hedonism fueled by fake smiles and a short attention span?

because he is a nice person that generally treats people nicely. Yeah he might be somewhat superficial but he has a kind heart.

>whose core philosophy is hedonism

Wow, because wanting to enjoy your life is a bad thing.

your projecting your own insecurities and your using this show as a way to complain about it.
Go back to /r9k

Because he's a fleshed out character with a strong emotional core?

Because he's a good boy.

This is where this thread should have ended.

Are you talking shit about based Mr Peanutbutter? You soulless monster

What is Todd's deal, then? He's always felt like the same character as Mr. Peanutbutter to me.

Todds' more resigned, he is for the most part, far less ambitious. Aside from his whole rock opera, the Disneyland plot and that other thing with the whales.

So you contradicted your own point.

Eh, his plans aside from the whale thing always fall through because of his lack of ambition or some outside forces.