File: 1611438268983.jpg (177.54 KB, 1080x841, 1080:841, u0xeidhgl3a61.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
What's the point in doing anything if we are all going to die, I mean if I were to die right now my life "experience" would be exactly the same than if I were to die at 99 after curing cancer and creating space colonies, to be precise, I would experience nothing, the end result of life is the same no matter what you do while alive, non existence. The king and slave are the same once they are in the grave, just a rotting sack of flesh and bones, sure the king may have more history books written about him, but it's not like he will ever have the chance to read them. And of course the psychologist will say "oh that's the depression talking, you have a warped view", but is it really? Is there anything really wrong with what I just said? It just seems to me that nothing is worth doing in life, no goal can justify the pain and suffering of working to achieve it. What do you think about this?
>What's the point in doing anything if we are all going to die
your problem is that you are assuming you will ultimately die when there is a chance that you will be the first person ever to not die, you'll never know if you don't stick it out
your problem is that you are assuming you will ultimately die when there is a chance that you will be the first person ever to not die, you'll never know if you don't stick it out
>>235150
Like how? By uploading my mind? Sure we will probably live longer than the current average but we will still die. If mind uploading becomes a thing that seperate being that seems like you isn't actually you, it's just a code that seems like you, like if I uploaded my mind now there would 2 versions of me but I would still be in my meat suit and experience life as a meat being, not a cyber one, the other me would do whatever he does in cyber space, but that proves that consciousness can't be uploaded, you will still die.
Like how? By uploading my mind? Sure we will probably live longer than the current average but we will still die. If mind uploading becomes a thing that seperate being that seems like you isn't actually you, it's just a code that seems like you, like if I uploaded my mind now there would 2 versions of me but I would still be in my meat suit and experience life as a meat being, not a cyber one, the other me would do whatever he does in cyber space, but that proves that consciousness can't be uploaded, you will still die.
well this is the exact reason, I WANT to believe my religion, despite all the inconsistencies and moral deflections inside of it (btw just like any religion in the world) but it gives me false will to do the right things I should and helps me in the spiritual level. I admit it is nothing but a self-satisfaction thing, some of you will call it fanatic,but if you deny the existence of god, you just let all kinds of things to happen , literally anything can be subject to take place in your world, even the fact of you , or me , or from each one's point of view, to be god of his own universe, and hence probably never die
>>235151
there is a chance that you will literally never die or age, just watch the mirror closely, as long as you catch any changes you'll stay the same forever
there is a chance that you will literally never die or age, just watch the mirror closely, as long as you catch any changes you'll stay the same forever
>>235149
There is literally no point to anything. Religion fags will try to tell you otherwise, though. Just enjoy the rollercoaster ride that is life until it stops.
There is literally no point to anything. Religion fags will try to tell you otherwise, though. Just enjoy the rollercoaster ride that is life until it stops.
>>235152
Hey wiz trust yourself. If something from an individual religion isn't serving you properly, stop believing in that one thing - doesn't mean you have to stop believing in the whole religion. Or interpret it in a way where it doesn't become poison to your mind.
Maybe it serves yourself to self-satisfy you, but just because it does doesn't mean it's not true. Don't try to out hardcore people or let dick waving religious zealots try to tell you 'if you don't believe in exactly my interpretation of God / religion you're wrong.' Fuck them. Why ruin something that helps you over a few elitists?
>>235149
Yeah you're right. I struggle with this as well. Who is better when shitting? The King or the Slave? That's a point in time when they're alive and to me they're in relatively the same position even though they're not dead.
Hey wiz trust yourself. If something from an individual religion isn't serving you properly, stop believing in that one thing - doesn't mean you have to stop believing in the whole religion. Or interpret it in a way where it doesn't become poison to your mind.
Maybe it serves yourself to self-satisfy you, but just because it does doesn't mean it's not true. Don't try to out hardcore people or let dick waving religious zealots try to tell you 'if you don't believe in exactly my interpretation of God / religion you're wrong.' Fuck them. Why ruin something that helps you over a few elitists?
>>235149
Yeah you're right. I struggle with this as well. Who is better when shitting? The King or the Slave? That's a point in time when they're alive and to me they're in relatively the same position even though they're not dead.
Every existence is trapped between conception and annihilation. It's the things that happen inbetween that make a difference.
File: 1611464799561.jpg (136.29 KB, 1409x1389, 1409:1389, d022ithtbj961.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
i dunno. i still cant figure out why i should do things. when i think about the bigger picture, about working 45 or so years until i retire, then have 10 free years until i die that i cant enjoy because im old, that doesnt really make me want to go out and accomplish anything. and because i dont have any conviction, i havent done anything yet. and i dont know how i feel about that because i dont have any conviction.
I share the same view as yourself wizzie but I am also aware of the inherent uncertainty and thus do not make absolute statements. Life is a misery filled mystery.
>>235169
Can you not just be a NEET I have lived more than old wagies if you consider all my free time.
>>235169
Can you not just be a NEET I have lived more than old wagies if you consider all my free time.
>>235170
the idea of working is so cucked to me. it seems like the most retarded thing ever to sell yourself out and get stressed out to labor for someone else so he can make money. even if you own your own business you are just a cuck to the demands of the ever changing market. i think what i really want is freedom to be able to do whatever i want. but i know thats not possible
the idea of working is so cucked to me. it seems like the most retarded thing ever to sell yourself out and get stressed out to labor for someone else so he can make money. even if you own your own business you are just a cuck to the demands of the ever changing market. i think what i really want is freedom to be able to do whatever i want. but i know thats not possible
>>235149
Huh… well… because… because….. Because you have to OK??? Just don’t ask questions and do it, OOKAAAAAAAYYY???
Huh… well… because… because….. Because you have to OK??? Just don’t ask questions and do it, OOKAAAAAAAYYY???
Well I imagine playing a videogame. Looking at your character on the monitor staying still and doing nothing gets boring really fast. You have to fill the time somehow.
There's no point apparently. Or at least I wasn't able to figure out one so far
The problem with the "big picture" is that it is something you're trying to figure out with your human brain and, in all honestly, I doubt human beings are capable of even imagining how big the picture really is, let alone what it is.
If for some reason your mind would be able to grasp what the bigger picture is, then you would have "the point" figured out anyway. In the meanwhile try to enjoy your brief stay if you can.
however if shit's too fucked up, planar shift is always a valid "choice" in my opinion
gl wizzie
There's no point apparently. Or at least I wasn't able to figure out one so far
The problem with the "big picture" is that it is something you're trying to figure out with your human brain and, in all honestly, I doubt human beings are capable of even imagining how big the picture really is, let alone what it is.
If for some reason your mind would be able to grasp what the bigger picture is, then you would have "the point" figured out anyway. In the meanwhile try to enjoy your brief stay if you can.
however if shit's too fucked up, planar shift is always a valid "choice" in my opinion
gl wizzie
>>235149
What's the point of dying? People live because they fear nothingness and having absolutely nothing to do or look forward into. No hobbies, food or any cool shit. People live just to live before their inevitable demise into nothingness.
What's the point of dying? People live because they fear nothingness and having absolutely nothing to do or look forward into. No hobbies, food or any cool shit. People live just to live before their inevitable demise into nothingness.
>>235219
The point of dying is to end the suffering, depression, and boredom. Experiencing nothing is better than experiencing pain.
The point of dying is to end the suffering, depression, and boredom. Experiencing nothing is better than experiencing pain.
File: 1611549511010.png (37.12 KB, 1104x644, 12:7, hh5544.PNG) ImgOps iqdb
>>235220
Life is infinite, as death/non-existence you can't experience time.
You instantly "wake" up again either in the same life over and over again, or in a different life.
Before you were born, you were experiencing "nothing", then you came into existence from "nothing", then "you" return back into "nothing".
Life is infinite, as death/non-existence you can't experience time.
You instantly "wake" up again either in the same life over and over again, or in a different life.
Before you were born, you were experiencing "nothing", then you came into existence from "nothing", then "you" return back into "nothing".
>>235221
You cannot prove this only make an assertion.
I always see you psting this but I wouldl ike to see you spend some time developing the idea and showing in theory why it must be.
You cannot prove this only make an assertion.
I always see you psting this but I wouldl ike to see you spend some time developing the idea and showing in theory why it must be.
>>235220
Why do you think it will be completely over once you die? What if you were born into another body and conscious doing the same similar shit all over again, and no you don't have to be reincarnated as a human.. Could be an alien, animal or something else.. Face it, all of us is doomed here in the cycle of existence, you simply can't exist into a plane of complete nothingness.
Why do you think it will be completely over once you die? What if you were born into another body and conscious doing the same similar shit all over again, and no you don't have to be reincarnated as a human.. Could be an alien, animal or something else.. Face it, all of us is doomed here in the cycle of existence, you simply can't exist into a plane of complete nothingness.
Without sleep it's impossibile to deal with reality as a human. Death could be like sleep: a break - like timeouts in sports - between conscious states. I wish I could sleep eternally though, but it's unlikely
Any man in this thread claiming truths about the philosphy of life is a liar. As a human being we know nothing before and after the life we exist in right now - so it is down to speculation.
You sound like the type to not bother himself in poinless thinkings and so I understand a lack of concern about after life and therefore a lack of concern about life and death themselves.
I understand this philosophy completely, as it is one that I share - there is nothing for us as people. We are ourselves so negligible on the plane of time, making it naive to belive when we are told that we are able to make a difference. Nothing will ever change.
This does not mean, however, that life is necessarily struggle. If you dont find any enjoyment why don't you go looking. I would be suprised if your search leads you nowhere. And if you truly find living a struggle, then the gamble, the delving into the unknown and dying is still an option.
I get by through finding amusement in the activities of people as a collective. Lying to themselves and trying to find answers in ignorance, now as much as ever. Politics, society, and class are fabrications - as are religion and science and faith. I take a step back from the world and focus on what is important to me. This attitude alongside a moral compass for ethical direction is what keeps me here.
You sound like the type to not bother himself in poinless thinkings and so I understand a lack of concern about after life and therefore a lack of concern about life and death themselves.
I understand this philosophy completely, as it is one that I share - there is nothing for us as people. We are ourselves so negligible on the plane of time, making it naive to belive when we are told that we are able to make a difference. Nothing will ever change.
This does not mean, however, that life is necessarily struggle. If you dont find any enjoyment why don't you go looking. I would be suprised if your search leads you nowhere. And if you truly find living a struggle, then the gamble, the delving into the unknown and dying is still an option.
I get by through finding amusement in the activities of people as a collective. Lying to themselves and trying to find answers in ignorance, now as much as ever. Politics, society, and class are fabrications - as are religion and science and faith. I take a step back from the world and focus on what is important to me. This attitude alongside a moral compass for ethical direction is what keeps me here.
>>235228
all the reincarantion theories are based on spiritual thesis, you are assuming the existence of something inside you that is non-physical since it is invariant after each reincarnation , and is not subject to physical corruption, which is more namely called a soul , and that soul defines your feeling of self-existence, time and can build up subjective impressions from a succession of events. If you assume such a thing, then you just opened up the door for all theists to call their theories right, which honestly i am a theist too , but don't want to see a wave of proselytism in this era
all the reincarantion theories are based on spiritual thesis, you are assuming the existence of something inside you that is non-physical since it is invariant after each reincarnation , and is not subject to physical corruption, which is more namely called a soul , and that soul defines your feeling of self-existence, time and can build up subjective impressions from a succession of events. If you assume such a thing, then you just opened up the door for all theists to call their theories right, which honestly i am a theist too , but don't want to see a wave of proselytism in this era
File: 1611645536205.jpg (94.09 KB, 886x720, 443:360, 1611126340828.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>235149
pessimism # depression
The former is a philosophical view the latter is a psychological state. You can be a pessimist and still enjoy life. You can't be depressed and still enjoy life.
It's important to separate these two. Especially in the modern times of professional psychology and internet. Both try to sell pessimism as a result of depression thus denying truth. Psychology makes money with this. Whenever you mention something negative about life you are mentally ill. It's as easy as that for them. On the Internet and often in real life people use it as a means of social shaming and peer pressure. When you mention something negative you are a weirdo, not normal, will be excluded and so on. That is because we live in a shallow society that is driven by slave morality. The actual force behind this behaviour though is fear. People fear death and the pointlessness of suffering so much that they would never admit it. So they will forever keep to the positive world view at all costs, knowingly lying to themselves.
pessimism # depression
The former is a philosophical view the latter is a psychological state. You can be a pessimist and still enjoy life. You can't be depressed and still enjoy life.
It's important to separate these two. Especially in the modern times of professional psychology and internet. Both try to sell pessimism as a result of depression thus denying truth. Psychology makes money with this. Whenever you mention something negative about life you are mentally ill. It's as easy as that for them. On the Internet and often in real life people use it as a means of social shaming and peer pressure. When you mention something negative you are a weirdo, not normal, will be excluded and so on. That is because we live in a shallow society that is driven by slave morality. The actual force behind this behaviour though is fear. People fear death and the pointlessness of suffering so much that they would never admit it. So they will forever keep to the positive world view at all costs, knowingly lying to themselves.
>>235149
>What's the point in doing anything if we are all going to die
The point of doing shit is precisely because we're going to die one day, so better extract the most pleasure out of life.
>What's the point in doing anything if we are all going to die
The point of doing shit is precisely because we're going to die one day, so better extract the most pleasure out of life.
>>235149
I've been recently dabbling in the philosophy of absurdism. According to it, our biggest problem is that we try to reasonably explain and assign meaning to an existence that is unreasonable and has no meaning. Instead of taking that as a reason to resign though, we should lucidly look at life, nothingness and the lack of inherent meaning and revolt against it. It doesn't matter if it's a fight we ultimately cannot win, struggling against this adversity is what creates the meaning in our lives and choosing to nevertheless try our best is what frees us from otherwise being victims of circumstance. The important part is not falling for belief systems that promise eventual freedom or happiness as a reward in the end somewhere, or philosophies that deny the inherent meaninglessness of it all, since there's no point in lying to yourself. At least that's what Albert Camus says, I don't know just read up on it yourself.
I've been recently dabbling in the philosophy of absurdism. According to it, our biggest problem is that we try to reasonably explain and assign meaning to an existence that is unreasonable and has no meaning. Instead of taking that as a reason to resign though, we should lucidly look at life, nothingness and the lack of inherent meaning and revolt against it. It doesn't matter if it's a fight we ultimately cannot win, struggling against this adversity is what creates the meaning in our lives and choosing to nevertheless try our best is what frees us from otherwise being victims of circumstance. The important part is not falling for belief systems that promise eventual freedom or happiness as a reward in the end somewhere, or philosophies that deny the inherent meaninglessness of it all, since there's no point in lying to yourself. At least that's what Albert Camus says, I don't know just read up on it yourself.
>>235829
>struggling against this adversity is what creates the meaning in our lives and frees us
except it doesn't, Camus just invented another fairy tale
>struggling against this adversity is what creates the meaning in our lives and frees us
except it doesn't, Camus just invented another fairy tale
>>235151
Conciousness is a very strange thing. I find it faschinating to think there are billions of minds all thinking thoughts and images and not just me. I just get moments of absolute clarity and serenity thinking about it and the absurdity of it. Each time someone dies an entire universe dissapears, a person's death can be seen on camera and spread online for the world to see. For the guy blowing his head off with a shotgun there is an eternal nothingness, he ceases to exist either forever or finds out if there is anything after, though I doubt it, and an entire universe of sentience dissapears. But we can rewatch the video time after time, some make jokes about it and some cry about it. In star treck each time they use the teleporter an atom by atom clone of them is created where they want to teleport and the one in the teleporter gets destroyed down to the atom. Same thing here with the uploading, and if one could really still say they are dead are we not ALWAYS dying and reviving infinitly fast with the passage of time? Then death is only the stopping of the loop of dying and reviving. It's one thing to think logically like are we the only sentient beings in the universe and another to think about it like REALLY think. We are so few in the world, just look at numbers in the universe with billions of trillions of miles of absolute nothingness no one sentient will ever see and I happened to become a sentient being on this planet of only a few billion people and not part of a rock a billion trillion lightyears away. Life, death and sentience are just so absurd all of them. History too, learning how connected everything is. There ave only been about 300 generations of us, very likely until then there was not a single sentient being in history so the world just as well might not have existed and only been around since then. And just the fact that there is a real possibility that the last sentient person in the entire universe can die in just a few to a few hundred years and the world will go back to having no one sentient to watch it. The entire universe will be the lone tree in the woods. It might just be my schizophernia, its very hard to put words on this feeling and thought but those are some examples in my rambling that might evoke it. Fuck I hope I made some sense at all
Conciousness is a very strange thing. I find it faschinating to think there are billions of minds all thinking thoughts and images and not just me. I just get moments of absolute clarity and serenity thinking about it and the absurdity of it. Each time someone dies an entire universe dissapears, a person's death can be seen on camera and spread online for the world to see. For the guy blowing his head off with a shotgun there is an eternal nothingness, he ceases to exist either forever or finds out if there is anything after, though I doubt it, and an entire universe of sentience dissapears. But we can rewatch the video time after time, some make jokes about it and some cry about it. In star treck each time they use the teleporter an atom by atom clone of them is created where they want to teleport and the one in the teleporter gets destroyed down to the atom. Same thing here with the uploading, and if one could really still say they are dead are we not ALWAYS dying and reviving infinitly fast with the passage of time? Then death is only the stopping of the loop of dying and reviving. It's one thing to think logically like are we the only sentient beings in the universe and another to think about it like REALLY think. We are so few in the world, just look at numbers in the universe with billions of trillions of miles of absolute nothingness no one sentient will ever see and I happened to become a sentient being on this planet of only a few billion people and not part of a rock a billion trillion lightyears away. Life, death and sentience are just so absurd all of them. History too, learning how connected everything is. There ave only been about 300 generations of us, very likely until then there was not a single sentient being in history so the world just as well might not have existed and only been around since then. And just the fact that there is a real possibility that the last sentient person in the entire universe can die in just a few to a few hundred years and the world will go back to having no one sentient to watch it. The entire universe will be the lone tree in the woods. It might just be my schizophernia, its very hard to put words on this feeling and thought but those are some examples in my rambling that might evoke it. Fuck I hope I made some sense at all
>>235221
Godammit you stealing my idea. I been talking about this phenomenon for years and I get called an idiot.
Godammit you stealing my idea. I been talking about this phenomenon for years and I get called an idiot.
>>235946
It's based on a stupid idea of cyclic universe. Which is based on humans fear of no-afterlife.
It's based on a stupid idea of cyclic universe. Which is based on humans fear of no-afterlife.
Rationally speaking, you are right. There is no point to life.
However, rationality is overrated. People tend to forget that our mind, logic and rationality are only tools. You have to (re)discover your irrational side. Your feelings, emotions, desires, passions, dreams, hopes and your individuality and ego are the salt of life. Let your subconscious to the surface. Embrace your beast-like, ancient side. The side of your personality that knows no morals, no restraints, not any of this civilized garbage but only how to enjoy itself.
Exploring and getting into the "dark" side of life, the dionysian life, the life of wizards, heretics and witches, the "satanic" kind of life gave me back my drive to live. Philosophically speaking you will always run into a brick wall if you try to understand the meaning of life - rationally there is no reason to continue living. But life itself wants to live, if I want to express myself poetically. There are forces at work in everyone, even you OP, that are only waiting to surface. Be tough and don't get scared of pain and suffering. I'm not saying life is easy this way because life is always hard, no matter how you choose to live it. But unless you are actually planning suicide right now, it is better to live this way than to rot away as a living corpse. The life I'm describing is pretty much anti-buddhism or anti-stoicism. Embrace life with all the shit it throws at your face and strive to get stronger, tougher. In this world power is everything. If you feel like crying, cry. If you feel like raging, rage on. If you feel despair, embrace it. If you feel happy, be grateful and enjoy it while it lasts. Life can be sweet sometimes and even when it isn't you have to push on. Don't let society and life beat you down.
However, rationality is overrated. People tend to forget that our mind, logic and rationality are only tools. You have to (re)discover your irrational side. Your feelings, emotions, desires, passions, dreams, hopes and your individuality and ego are the salt of life. Let your subconscious to the surface. Embrace your beast-like, ancient side. The side of your personality that knows no morals, no restraints, not any of this civilized garbage but only how to enjoy itself.
Exploring and getting into the "dark" side of life, the dionysian life, the life of wizards, heretics and witches, the "satanic" kind of life gave me back my drive to live. Philosophically speaking you will always run into a brick wall if you try to understand the meaning of life - rationally there is no reason to continue living. But life itself wants to live, if I want to express myself poetically. There are forces at work in everyone, even you OP, that are only waiting to surface. Be tough and don't get scared of pain and suffering. I'm not saying life is easy this way because life is always hard, no matter how you choose to live it. But unless you are actually planning suicide right now, it is better to live this way than to rot away as a living corpse. The life I'm describing is pretty much anti-buddhism or anti-stoicism. Embrace life with all the shit it throws at your face and strive to get stronger, tougher. In this world power is everything. If you feel like crying, cry. If you feel like raging, rage on. If you feel despair, embrace it. If you feel happy, be grateful and enjoy it while it lasts. Life can be sweet sometimes and even when it isn't you have to push on. Don't let society and life beat you down.
>>235831
Yea it doesn’t “free” you, only distracts. The pursuit of pleasure is the most roundabout way to cope. But even that has its limits in term of the expiration of its novelty
Yea it doesn’t “free” you, only distracts. The pursuit of pleasure is the most roundabout way to cope. But even that has its limits in term of the expiration of its novelty
File: 1612910907993.jpg (12.18 KB, 186x271, 186:271, gayscience.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>235975
Your head is so far up your ass it's astonishing. Do you not see the irony in all of this shit you wrote? You are rationalizing irrationality… the very tool you're condemning, you used to formulate the condemnation with! Go read some more Nietzsche, faggot.
Your head is so far up your ass it's astonishing. Do you not see the irony in all of this shit you wrote? You are rationalizing irrationality… the very tool you're condemning, you used to formulate the condemnation with! Go read some more Nietzsche, faggot.
>>235979
I'm not rationalizing it, I just gave a description of the irrational kind of life. You embody exactly the sort of people I described, you try to see and understand everything rationally therefore you always see contradictions everywhere.
Enjoy your rationality slowly suffocating your spirit, vitality and ironically, your mind too.
>Go read some more Nietzsche
Maybe.
I'm not rationalizing it, I just gave a description of the irrational kind of life. You embody exactly the sort of people I described, you try to see and understand everything rationally therefore you always see contradictions everywhere.
Enjoy your rationality slowly suffocating your spirit, vitality and ironically, your mind too.
>Go read some more Nietzsche
Maybe.
>>236040
Word-salad schizoid posts don't stand up to rationality, go figure. Like I said, go read some more Nietzsche and follow your leader. Turns out he wansn't that bad of a guy and was a full-time mooch on relatives, but doesn't excuse the fact that he was a schizoid autist that found enjoyment in being insane.
Word-salad schizoid posts don't stand up to rationality, go figure. Like I said, go read some more Nietzsche and follow your leader. Turns out he wansn't that bad of a guy and was a full-time mooch on relatives, but doesn't excuse the fact that he was a schizoid autist that found enjoyment in being insane.
>>235975
Life is gay. The planet should be nuked because the wizards are suffering under the cruel oppression of the normalfag world.
Life is gay. The planet should be nuked because the wizards are suffering under the cruel oppression of the normalfag world.
If you dont have any lucky in life there really nothing to do normies will always tell you that life is worthliving but is not and with time your life only become worse
>>236065
Using the words "schizoid", "autist" and "insane" as insults betrays you. Go back to where you came from.
>>236069
>>236105
What a sorry and pathetic state this site is in. It is astonishing. Calling someone a succubus just because he advocates for vitality and strength. Do I even need to bother arguing with you?
>>236091
First, wizards aren't a collective. We don't know each other and most of us don't have anything in common at all besides being loners and virgins. I don't feel any pity towards other wizards, just like how I don't feel any towards normals.
Second, might makes right. If you want to nuke the planet then go ahead and try.
Third, life is harsh and cruel, I never said otherwise. But we have to strive in spite of all hardships.
Using the words "schizoid", "autist" and "insane" as insults betrays you. Go back to where you came from.
>>236069
>>236105
What a sorry and pathetic state this site is in. It is astonishing. Calling someone a succubus just because he advocates for vitality and strength. Do I even need to bother arguing with you?
>>236091
First, wizards aren't a collective. We don't know each other and most of us don't have anything in common at all besides being loners and virgins. I don't feel any pity towards other wizards, just like how I don't feel any towards normals.
Second, might makes right. If you want to nuke the planet then go ahead and try.
Third, life is harsh and cruel, I never said otherwise. But we have to strive in spite of all hardships.
File: 1613070412779.jpg (23.36 KB, 375x280, 75:56, 92089802.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>236120
"wizards aren't a collective" there's another one of your famous oxymorons, lol. You're so funny let's be friends.
"wizards aren't a collective" there's another one of your famous oxymorons, lol. You're so funny let's be friends.
>>236123
My fellow wizard… a collective that's not a collective is the greatest collective of all! We are formless and rogue of heart. We hate so deeply and love so fully, yet we are the arbiters of truth. A lonely heart is incredible, put them together and you have a pulse to match the beats of heaven itself.
My fellow wizard… a collective that's not a collective is the greatest collective of all! We are formless and rogue of heart. We hate so deeply and love so fully, yet we are the arbiters of truth. A lonely heart is incredible, put them together and you have a pulse to match the beats of heaven itself.
This fucking shithole website has degraded from being a joke to.. I don't even know what at this point. Just looking at it makes me wanna vomit.
>>236128
why do i always forget to save that comic a with a dude rolling in pigs shit and complaining about them
why do i always forget to save that comic a with a dude rolling in pigs shit and complaining about them
File: 1613078275874.jpg (81.28 KB, 512x288, 16:9, unnamed.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>235149
The answer is in the question. You already see the futility in predicating value on experience, action, status, wealth, legacy, goals, etc, so you know the point isn't that. What remains is quite subtle and gentle, but I think you can see it.
The answer is in the question. You already see the futility in predicating value on experience, action, status, wealth, legacy, goals, etc, so you know the point isn't that. What remains is quite subtle and gentle, but I think you can see it.
>>236138
>You already see the futility in predicating value on experience, action, status, wealth, legacy, goals, etc,
Do most of you really believe this? Coping at its worst, if you ask me. Only weak and pathetic people turn to death and despise earthly goods. Everyone dies, duh obviously. What matters is the present.
>You already see the futility in predicating value on experience, action, status, wealth, legacy, goals, etc,
Do most of you really believe this? Coping at its worst, if you ask me. Only weak and pathetic people turn to death and despise earthly goods. Everyone dies, duh obviously. What matters is the present.
>>236140
What are you doing at this place for weak and pathetic people? Such a strong and admirable citizen must have better things to do, building his legacy with every beat of his heart.
What are you doing at this place for weak and pathetic people? Such a strong and admirable citizen must have better things to do, building his legacy with every beat of his heart.
File: 1613081648507.jpg (1.71 MB, 1684x1191, 1684:1191, akyuu.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>236140
Unfortunately for you there are lots of historical examples of the powerful having such a realization, like Ivan the Terrible, Siddhartha Gautama, Constantine, Marcus Aurelius, Theodosios, etc, that you now have to account for. We'll leave aside the significant body of artwork and literature on the subject given the predilections of artists and philosophers.
The question however is specifically on the predication of value. This doesn't necessarily entail despising earthly goods, turning towards death, or anything else in fact; simply that they are not adequate predicates of value.
Unfortunately for you there are lots of historical examples of the powerful having such a realization, like Ivan the Terrible, Siddhartha Gautama, Constantine, Marcus Aurelius, Theodosios, etc, that you now have to account for. We'll leave aside the significant body of artwork and literature on the subject given the predilections of artists and philosophers.
The question however is specifically on the predication of value. This doesn't necessarily entail despising earthly goods, turning towards death, or anything else in fact; simply that they are not adequate predicates of value.
>>236130
Oh please forgive me for wanting this place to be something other than trolls trolling trolls.
Oh please forgive me for wanting this place to be something other than trolls trolling trolls.
>>235149
>the end result of life is the same no matter what you do while alive
I'm pretty sure it's not the end station you should be focussing on but rather the ride. Which is fine unless the ride sucks too.
>the end result of life is the same no matter what you do while alive
I'm pretty sure it's not the end station you should be focussing on but rather the ride. Which is fine unless the ride sucks too.
>>236146
Yeah bruh, since 2014 megatons of /dep/ posts were all just trolling, cuz out there life is actually a fucking miracle for everyone, divine creation full of inner meaning.
Yeah bruh, since 2014 megatons of /dep/ posts were all just trolling, cuz out there life is actually a fucking miracle for everyone, divine creation full of inner meaning.
>>236141
They find joy in finding people beneath them and shitting on them, I'm surprised that you're still surprised at this
They find joy in finding people beneath them and shitting on them, I'm surprised that you're still surprised at this
>>236149
It was a sarcasm implying that if he's lurking here and not enjoying his earthly goods he's the same sack of shit as everyone else.
It was a sarcasm implying that if he's lurking here and not enjoying his earthly goods he's the same sack of shit as everyone else.
>>236140
Holy fucking shit, how did I not realize how great being alive is? Thanks for reminding me. I will now go outside and witness the beauty of the world.
Oh wait, what is this?
A starving child without its mother?
A homeless dude sleeping in a tent and barely hanging on?
A cute puppy getting its head smashed into the asphalt by a passing vehicle?
Wonderful.
Anyone who isn't a raging normalfaggot knows that death is the savior of all.
Holy fucking shit, how did I not realize how great being alive is? Thanks for reminding me. I will now go outside and witness the beauty of the world.
Oh wait, what is this?
A starving child without its mother?
A homeless dude sleeping in a tent and barely hanging on?
A cute puppy getting its head smashed into the asphalt by a passing vehicle?
Wonderful.
Anyone who isn't a raging normalfaggot knows that death is the savior of all.
>>236151
You forgot:
People using each other mercilessly for personal gain,poverty,diseases,physical pain,endless hyperconsumerism turning everything into a commodity,forced isolation,dissolution of the family unit,shit media,shit economy, shitty working conditions,shitty life, old age.
You forgot:
People using each other mercilessly for personal gain,poverty,diseases,physical pain,endless hyperconsumerism turning everything into a commodity,forced isolation,dissolution of the family unit,shit media,shit economy, shitty working conditions,shitty life, old age.
>>236141
Just doing a little social studies, seeing what other virgins and loners are up to currently. I'm pretty disappointed by the results, honestly. This place didn't change at all.
>>236145
The so called "powerful" you cite here were anything but powerful. I finished reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius yesterday actually and it gave me the impression of an extremely pathetic, weak and miserable person. The Buddha also gave me the same vibes, a person who "accidentally" happened to be born into a powerful family and rank but was so weak that he ran away from power. Shameful and degenerate.
>>236151
>>236154
Give me a break. Why should anyone care about other people, animals and trees suffering? You are so deluded that you don't realize that existence is a struggle. The weak always gets nothing. That is the rule of this world. You try to fit the world into your little box of morals and cry out when you encounter reality. Grow up. Nobody cares about you except your family maybe. You shouldn't care about others either, get rid of this unhealthy mindset. The only thing you accomplish with your big empathy is making yourself into a weakling and slave to others. You betray yourself by showing pity towards others.
Just doing a little social studies, seeing what other virgins and loners are up to currently. I'm pretty disappointed by the results, honestly. This place didn't change at all.
>>236145
The so called "powerful" you cite here were anything but powerful. I finished reading Meditations by Marcus Aurelius yesterday actually and it gave me the impression of an extremely pathetic, weak and miserable person. The Buddha also gave me the same vibes, a person who "accidentally" happened to be born into a powerful family and rank but was so weak that he ran away from power. Shameful and degenerate.
>>236151
>>236154
Give me a break. Why should anyone care about other people, animals and trees suffering? You are so deluded that you don't realize that existence is a struggle. The weak always gets nothing. That is the rule of this world. You try to fit the world into your little box of morals and cry out when you encounter reality. Grow up. Nobody cares about you except your family maybe. You shouldn't care about others either, get rid of this unhealthy mindset. The only thing you accomplish with your big empathy is making yourself into a weakling and slave to others. You betray yourself by showing pity towards others.
>>236185
Your lack of empathy is a projection. Although, there are probably a lot of people like you, there are many that do care beyond their animalistic instincts of selfishness.
Your lack of empathy is a projection. Although, there are probably a lot of people like you, there are many that do care beyond their animalistic instincts of selfishness.
>>236185
Yeah, let's encourage and try to live in a world where might is right and empathy is for pussies.It's working out so great isn't it?
You're fucking retarded.One day you will end up broken too, life breaks everybody, everybody loses eventually,remember what you said when it happens. It's one thing to acknowledge that most people have little to no empathy whatsoever, but to encourage it is just fucking stupid.
Please fuck off from this website and never come back.
Yeah, let's encourage and try to live in a world where might is right and empathy is for pussies.It's working out so great isn't it?
You're fucking retarded.One day you will end up broken too, life breaks everybody, everybody loses eventually,remember what you said when it happens. It's one thing to acknowledge that most people have little to no empathy whatsoever, but to encourage it is just fucking stupid.
Please fuck off from this website and never come back.
File: 1613181222278.jpg (233.22 KB, 620x877, 620:877, original_osaragi_mitama.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>236185
>The so called "powerful" you cite here were anything but powerful.
>it gave me the impression
>gave me the same vibes
Thankfully you aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't considered powerful throughout history. Whatever impression we have of the approaches of Constantine or Siddhartha doesn't matter, since they have little resemblance to each other. The question is: are they considered powerful by history? Yes. Did they have a realization like OP? Yes. This leaves you with two problems:
1. you have no account for the actions of these historical figures
2. OP's question remains unanswered
You have to explain to OP why he should adopt a view that has no explanatory power for large swathes of human history, and frankly the human condition, when my position accounts for both. OP is starting from the position where he clearly perceives the futility in predication of value. I would suggest that many people, including aristocrats, emperors, philosophers, artists, etc, have also struggled with this: consequently they are often concerned with their death, legacy, and purpose. You are compelled to view this cynically or as a sign of weakness, because you are struggling to obtain what they already have effortlessly. This isn't a problem in itself, but becomes a problem when you engage with the question.
>a person who "accidentally" happened to be born into a powerful family
There's nothing random or accidental about which family you're born into. By definition you are the son or daughter of your parents, who themselves are the sons and daughters of their parents. I only highlight this since it's the third positive claim you've made in a common trifecta:
1. all that matters is the present (>>236140)
2. individuals are born randomly, ahistorically, antisocially, as blank slates (>>236185)
3. existence as struggle between individuals (various cliches about bootstrapping, the world owing you nothing, nobody caring, etc)
These are all ideas from the 1800s, and have been thoroughly critiqued. 1. If all that matters is the present, this is true for all present moments and so all time, and is therefore self-contradictory on the face of it. This is also contradictory at the paradigmatic level in which such claims can be made to begin with, as it presupposes identity across time. 2. There's no indication the natural state of man is a lone individual in a field, overcoming all by their own hands. This is a historical invention by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke to advance their theory of natural rights. The reality is man has always been born into a tribe with preexisting power relations. 3. This is a variation of 2 applied to all of nature. There's no indication nature is comprised of individuals competing in a Darwinian free market, least of all humans who act in social groups. None of this is interesting or addresses the topic, but underlines the problems in your position.
>The so called "powerful" you cite here were anything but powerful.
>it gave me the impression
>gave me the same vibes
Thankfully you aren't the arbiter of who is and isn't considered powerful throughout history. Whatever impression we have of the approaches of Constantine or Siddhartha doesn't matter, since they have little resemblance to each other. The question is: are they considered powerful by history? Yes. Did they have a realization like OP? Yes. This leaves you with two problems:
1. you have no account for the actions of these historical figures
2. OP's question remains unanswered
You have to explain to OP why he should adopt a view that has no explanatory power for large swathes of human history, and frankly the human condition, when my position accounts for both. OP is starting from the position where he clearly perceives the futility in predication of value. I would suggest that many people, including aristocrats, emperors, philosophers, artists, etc, have also struggled with this: consequently they are often concerned with their death, legacy, and purpose. You are compelled to view this cynically or as a sign of weakness, because you are struggling to obtain what they already have effortlessly. This isn't a problem in itself, but becomes a problem when you engage with the question.
>a person who "accidentally" happened to be born into a powerful family
There's nothing random or accidental about which family you're born into. By definition you are the son or daughter of your parents, who themselves are the sons and daughters of their parents. I only highlight this since it's the third positive claim you've made in a common trifecta:
1. all that matters is the present (>>236140)
2. individuals are born randomly, ahistorically, antisocially, as blank slates (>>236185)
3. existence as struggle between individuals (various cliches about bootstrapping, the world owing you nothing, nobody caring, etc)
These are all ideas from the 1800s, and have been thoroughly critiqued. 1. If all that matters is the present, this is true for all present moments and so all time, and is therefore self-contradictory on the face of it. This is also contradictory at the paradigmatic level in which such claims can be made to begin with, as it presupposes identity across time. 2. There's no indication the natural state of man is a lone individual in a field, overcoming all by their own hands. This is a historical invention by thinkers like Hobbes and Locke to advance their theory of natural rights. The reality is man has always been born into a tribe with preexisting power relations. 3. This is a variation of 2 applied to all of nature. There's no indication nature is comprised of individuals competing in a Darwinian free market, least of all humans who act in social groups. None of this is interesting or addresses the topic, but underlines the problems in your position.
That is why i was a neet hikkimori for 7 years life is shit and pointless life is comfy when others humans cant stress you while you enjoy your copes
>>236232
Implying he is destroying anyone, implying he's not just using fancy words to construct his own reality that he chooses to exist in. Implying there is a correct way to view the world around us and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other extreme (fighting for fulfilment). Implying both users are not just doing the same with their time, wasting it on an imageboard, regardless of what they choose as their reality…
Implying he is destroying anyone, implying he's not just using fancy words to construct his own reality that he chooses to exist in. Implying there is a correct way to view the world around us and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other extreme (fighting for fulfilment). Implying both users are not just doing the same with their time, wasting it on an imageboard, regardless of what they choose as their reality…
>>236234
>and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other
Yeah, that one's better.
Sincerely,
God.
>and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other
Yeah, that one's better.
Sincerely,
God.
>>236234
Based because I despise cute anime avatar fag posters as much as darwinian individualistic struggle for success posters.
Based because I despise cute anime avatar fag posters as much as darwinian individualistic struggle for success posters.
File: 1613227177682.jpg (427.8 KB, 2000x1465, 400:293, jyuuguu.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>236234
>Implying there is a correct way to view the world around us and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other extreme (fighting for fulfilment).
It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting the futility, only that it places someone in a better place than those who delude themselves about the world. Many people spend their lives tangled up in ideas about this or that, I have to do this or be that, but we plainly perceive these ideas to be useless. What we do knowing this is the question.
>Implying there is a correct way to view the world around us and that one extreme (accepting the futility) is better than the other extreme (fighting for fulfilment).
It's not a matter of accepting or rejecting the futility, only that it places someone in a better place than those who delude themselves about the world. Many people spend their lives tangled up in ideas about this or that, I have to do this or be that, but we plainly perceive these ideas to be useless. What we do knowing this is the question.
>>236250
>Many people spend their lives tangled up in ideas about this or that, I have to do this or be that, but we plainly perceive these ideas to be useless.
It's called setting goals. And when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness. When you don't you feel saddened. It is not an issue in itself. The issues arise when you set unobtainable goals. But not setting goals and keeping your brain from spiking in not necessarily better. There are multiple ways to pass your time on this rock. And the most retarded way to spend your time is by thinking you are enlightened.
>Many people spend their lives tangled up in ideas about this or that, I have to do this or be that, but we plainly perceive these ideas to be useless.
It's called setting goals. And when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness. When you don't you feel saddened. It is not an issue in itself. The issues arise when you set unobtainable goals. But not setting goals and keeping your brain from spiking in not necessarily better. There are multiple ways to pass your time on this rock. And the most retarded way to spend your time is by thinking you are enlightened.
>>236255
wYou have it wrong the issue is not having a goal it is simply working towards a goal that counts and actually completing it is BAD as it means you need a new one.
If you do have a desire for a goa and work on it you will feel better the goal itself does not need to be realistic it could be digging to china for example and you would enjoy it.
You need to take the ascetic pill and let go or just keep working that hedonic treadmill.
wYou have it wrong the issue is not having a goal it is simply working towards a goal that counts and actually completing it is BAD as it means you need a new one.
If you do have a desire for a goa and work on it you will feel better the goal itself does not need to be realistic it could be digging to china for example and you would enjoy it.
You need to take the ascetic pill and let go or just keep working that hedonic treadmill.
>>236255
>when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness
Except when you don't get shit from your brain no matter the achievement.
That's the difference between you people.
>when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness
Except when you don't get shit from your brain no matter the achievement.
That's the difference between you people.
>>236257
>the goal itself does not need to be realistic it could be digging to china for example and you would enjoy it
Nobody would enjoy digging to China or even pick it as a goal. What I meant when I said you shouldn't pick unreachable goals is that you for example shouldn't look for an abled persons job as a disabled person. You shouldn't set a goal that will confront you over and over with failure. Instead you can set small goals and reach them for short term fulfillment. And afterwards pick new ones. It's no different from eating to stop your hunger. Have you starved yourself yet or are you just pretending to like this lifestyle?
>You need to take the ascetic pill and let go or just keep working that hedonic treadmill.
Or you can find middle ground. Not try too hard, understand that there are things that you can't change, understand that the only mind you can reasonably control is your own. And do whatever you want with that understanding.
>the goal itself does not need to be realistic it could be digging to china for example and you would enjoy it
Nobody would enjoy digging to China or even pick it as a goal. What I meant when I said you shouldn't pick unreachable goals is that you for example shouldn't look for an abled persons job as a disabled person. You shouldn't set a goal that will confront you over and over with failure. Instead you can set small goals and reach them for short term fulfillment. And afterwards pick new ones. It's no different from eating to stop your hunger. Have you starved yourself yet or are you just pretending to like this lifestyle?
>You need to take the ascetic pill and let go or just keep working that hedonic treadmill.
Or you can find middle ground. Not try too hard, understand that there are things that you can't change, understand that the only mind you can reasonably control is your own. And do whatever you want with that understanding.
>>236260
Why are you here? Is it not because you find fulfillment in coming here?
I never said that I considered life fulfilling as a whole.
Why are you here? Is it not because you find fulfillment in coming here?
I never said that I considered life fulfilling as a whole.
>>236199
And I am telling you that those people - including you - who actually have empathy are fools. You destroy countless and countless life forms around you just by existing. You can't exist in this world without hurting other beings. Empathy is a delusion and a degenerate mindset. You yourself who probably feels real empathy act against that same empathy numerous times a day, without even noticing it. If you care about other beings so much, then unironically kill yourself and let other humans/life forms compete instead of you taking up the precious place and having the precious resources.
>>236204
We should encourage it since it is the natural order. We can't exist without competition and selfishness. It isn't about being broken or not (by the way, I disagree, not everybody is weak like you and others here, not everybody ends up broken - only the weak). Who knows, maybe you are right. Maybe I will break and will be weak too. But it will be only because I will be weak, not because might makes right isn't true. Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful. The weak don't deserve anything. You are weak because you refuse to compete and to hurt your fellow man, yet you feel a smug superiority during this. But you aren't dropping out of any race, like I said. As long as you live and breath you are part of the competition, like it or not. By feeling empathy for others and by "refusing" to compete you betray your own ancestors who struggled and desired to survive at all costs, and worst of all you betray yourself. Coward.
>>236211
First, you can't refer to "history" like it is a person. The study of history is done by multiple individuals who most of the time disagree with each other on almost everything. But this point is irrelevant either way.
M.Aurelius and the Buddha were objectively weak people. They had power but they either refused to live with it and escaped from it or sank into a rotten ideology like stoicism which is the philosophy of people who hate life and have no vitality at all. Stoicism and Buddhism are about lobotomizing yourself, so to speak. The weakest run to these ideologies because they hate life and themselves, they need some horrible coping mechanism.
You can be born into a powerful family but if you don't use that power or use it according to these wicked philosophical tenets then you are a coward and a weakling, no two ways about it. Marcus had power yet he was so tired of life and scared of himself that he used this power only according to some slave morality. Siddharta altogether left strength and power behind like the loser and spineless idiot he was. Their opinions don't matter because they were slaves actually, even if they were of noble descent. Just because you were born into a powerful family that doesn't make you powerful. You have to live with that power, use it for your own gains and enjoy it to be a master.
And sorry, but most higher class people, nobles, kings, aristocrats, etc. didn't/don't lose their will to live and their vitality. It takes an extraordinarily weak character to be like Marcus or the Buddha.
>all that matters is the present
You can use all the wordplays and meme philosophical arguments but this holds true. We only experience the present, we always live in the present only.
> individuals are born randomly, ahistorically, antisocially, as blank slates
Lineage isn't everything. Marcus and Siddharta are good examples of this.
>There's no indication nature is comprised of individuals competing in a Darwinian free market, least of all humans who act in social groups.
There is, actually. Since animals and humans always both put the individual interest before the interest of the group. See the act of mating, getting food, etc. Of course, there are aberrations and crazies both in the animal world and among humans but we can disregard the lunatics.
>These are all ideas from the 1800s
Not an argument.
And I am telling you that those people - including you - who actually have empathy are fools. You destroy countless and countless life forms around you just by existing. You can't exist in this world without hurting other beings. Empathy is a delusion and a degenerate mindset. You yourself who probably feels real empathy act against that same empathy numerous times a day, without even noticing it. If you care about other beings so much, then unironically kill yourself and let other humans/life forms compete instead of you taking up the precious place and having the precious resources.
>>236204
We should encourage it since it is the natural order. We can't exist without competition and selfishness. It isn't about being broken or not (by the way, I disagree, not everybody is weak like you and others here, not everybody ends up broken - only the weak). Who knows, maybe you are right. Maybe I will break and will be weak too. But it will be only because I will be weak, not because might makes right isn't true. Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful. The weak don't deserve anything. You are weak because you refuse to compete and to hurt your fellow man, yet you feel a smug superiority during this. But you aren't dropping out of any race, like I said. As long as you live and breath you are part of the competition, like it or not. By feeling empathy for others and by "refusing" to compete you betray your own ancestors who struggled and desired to survive at all costs, and worst of all you betray yourself. Coward.
>>236211
First, you can't refer to "history" like it is a person. The study of history is done by multiple individuals who most of the time disagree with each other on almost everything. But this point is irrelevant either way.
M.Aurelius and the Buddha were objectively weak people. They had power but they either refused to live with it and escaped from it or sank into a rotten ideology like stoicism which is the philosophy of people who hate life and have no vitality at all. Stoicism and Buddhism are about lobotomizing yourself, so to speak. The weakest run to these ideologies because they hate life and themselves, they need some horrible coping mechanism.
You can be born into a powerful family but if you don't use that power or use it according to these wicked philosophical tenets then you are a coward and a weakling, no two ways about it. Marcus had power yet he was so tired of life and scared of himself that he used this power only according to some slave morality. Siddharta altogether left strength and power behind like the loser and spineless idiot he was. Their opinions don't matter because they were slaves actually, even if they were of noble descent. Just because you were born into a powerful family that doesn't make you powerful. You have to live with that power, use it for your own gains and enjoy it to be a master.
And sorry, but most higher class people, nobles, kings, aristocrats, etc. didn't/don't lose their will to live and their vitality. It takes an extraordinarily weak character to be like Marcus or the Buddha.
>all that matters is the present
You can use all the wordplays and meme philosophical arguments but this holds true. We only experience the present, we always live in the present only.
> individuals are born randomly, ahistorically, antisocially, as blank slates
Lineage isn't everything. Marcus and Siddharta are good examples of this.
>There's no indication nature is comprised of individuals competing in a Darwinian free market, least of all humans who act in social groups.
There is, actually. Since animals and humans always both put the individual interest before the interest of the group. See the act of mating, getting food, etc. Of course, there are aberrations and crazies both in the animal world and among humans but we can disregard the lunatics.
>These are all ideas from the 1800s
Not an argument.
>>236274
so much word gymnastics from a microbe living for 2 seconds on a grain of sand in an ocean of nothing
so much word gymnastics from a microbe living for 2 seconds on a grain of sand in an ocean of nothing
>>236274
>Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful.
Please don't extol humanity. It is worthless and not worth continuing at any level.
>stoicism which is the philosophy of people who hate life and have no vitality at all
Hating this life and the idiocy that is human replication is pretty much the only thing that makes sense.
>Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful.
Please don't extol humanity. It is worthless and not worth continuing at any level.
>stoicism which is the philosophy of people who hate life and have no vitality at all
Hating this life and the idiocy that is human replication is pretty much the only thing that makes sense.
>>236277
Don't make laugh. It is funny when people try to come up with the "we are just grains of sand in the universe" card. Try harder with your nihilistic shilling.
>>236278
No, I'm not going anywhere. Christ, you do state obvious things. Everyone grows old, gets sick and dies eventually. You sound like a teenager who thought about these things for the first time in his life. Just like how the Buddha got disgusted with life when he first discovered sickness, death and suffering. Suffering and pain are natural parts of life. Life isn't beautiful despite suffering, it is beautiful exactly because suffering exists. A life without struggle, pain, suffering, hardships and conflicts wouldn't be life at all. Instead of acting like a scared child strive to get stronger and better. Or not, whatever you want.
>>236282
>Please don't extol humanity. It is worthless and not worth continuing at any level.
I would say a species that survived this long and achieved this much is worth continuing. But of course, nature will decide this. If humanity will get weak it will be wiped out in the future like it deserves.
>Hating this life and the idiocy that is human replication is pretty much the only thing that makes sense.
From a classical moral standpoint, maybe. However, morals are fake and hypocrite. Every ideology that preaches about caring for your neighbor and placing the collective before the individual is evil, wicked and rotten.
Don't make laugh. It is funny when people try to come up with the "we are just grains of sand in the universe" card. Try harder with your nihilistic shilling.
>>236278
No, I'm not going anywhere. Christ, you do state obvious things. Everyone grows old, gets sick and dies eventually. You sound like a teenager who thought about these things for the first time in his life. Just like how the Buddha got disgusted with life when he first discovered sickness, death and suffering. Suffering and pain are natural parts of life. Life isn't beautiful despite suffering, it is beautiful exactly because suffering exists. A life without struggle, pain, suffering, hardships and conflicts wouldn't be life at all. Instead of acting like a scared child strive to get stronger and better. Or not, whatever you want.
>>236282
>Please don't extol humanity. It is worthless and not worth continuing at any level.
I would say a species that survived this long and achieved this much is worth continuing. But of course, nature will decide this. If humanity will get weak it will be wiped out in the future like it deserves.
>Hating this life and the idiocy that is human replication is pretty much the only thing that makes sense.
From a classical moral standpoint, maybe. However, morals are fake and hypocrite. Every ideology that preaches about caring for your neighbor and placing the collective before the individual is evil, wicked and rotten.
It's not about reason, it's about emotions. If you feel bad you'll not see a "point", because that's what your emotions "tell" you about the world, that's how you objectively perceive the world.
>>236412
Beauty doesn't have to make up for anything since suffering isn't inherently evil like most people here think. Suffering and pain shape us, change us, can help us achieve new heights and explore new depths.
Beauty is a natural consequence of suffering, it doesn't exist to compensate for anything.
Beauty doesn't have to make up for anything since suffering isn't inherently evil like most people here think. Suffering and pain shape us, change us, can help us achieve new heights and explore new depths.
Beauty is a natural consequence of suffering, it doesn't exist to compensate for anything.
>>236451
Fuck off back to plebbit this is a joke right? Trauma can help people grow but it can destroy them if suffering is so good why the hell is rape against the law you could act as some rappe jesus helping people grow by walking around raping them but this is not the case you normalfaggot.
Do you think at all or just picck up on what your other sheep friends (I know you have them normie) tell you?
Fuck off back to plebbit this is a joke right? Trauma can help people grow but it can destroy them if suffering is so good why the hell is rape against the law you could act as some rappe jesus helping people grow by walking around raping them but this is not the case you normalfaggot.
Do you think at all or just picck up on what your other sheep friends (I know you have them normie) tell you?
>>236471
>>236482
Throwing around meme one-liners (go back to reddit!!) isn't an argument.
>if suffering is so good why the hell is rape against the law
Do you even think before you write nonsense? Rape is against the law because the people in power decided to make a law that rape is bad. That's it. Besides, what is the law has absolutely no connection to whether suffering is good or not.
>>236482
Throwing around meme one-liners (go back to reddit!!) isn't an argument.
>if suffering is so good why the hell is rape against the law
Do you even think before you write nonsense? Rape is against the law because the people in power decided to make a law that rape is bad. That's it. Besides, what is the law has absolutely no connection to whether suffering is good or not.
File: 1613606672735.png (877.39 KB, 1000x1400, 5:7, akyuu.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>236255
>It's called setting goals. And when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness. When you don't you feel saddened.
Precisely. Any boost in happiness is fleeting, and when that changes it produces sadness. In this case the cause of sadness is the impermanence of the happy condition. You may have many things from pursuing goals, but you won't have peace.
There's happiness in having goals and happiness in being goalless, but both are fleeting and therefore produce sadness. This is the vicissitude of life, and it's a conceit to knowingly pile up what you know doesn't really make you happy. As long as we remain ignorant of the causes of our condition, knowingly or not, we will continue to be thrown from one thing to the other.
>>236274
>The study of history is done by multiple individuals who most of the time disagree with each other on almost everything… Aurelius and the Buddha were objectively weak people.
History is certainly open to interpretation. In that case if Roman emperors, pharaohs, sultans, and tsars weren't temporally powerful, who was? If they ruled by the power of their unbreakable wills alone, why were they crowned by priests? Why then appeal to oracles, mystics, augurs, why write laws, treatises, poetry, why commission art, sculpture, buildings? Why does the Byzantine eagle have two heads? One head representing the monarchy, the other the church? Why do kings carry a sword and a scepter? A crook and a flail? Why did Greek and Macedonian generals go to Delphi? Why do knights swear fealty and samurai uphold bushido? Will you carve out exceptions for all these, as examples of weakness, or accept there's a blindspot in your worldview?
>most higher class people, nobles, kings, aristocrats, etc. didn't/don't lose their will to live and their vitality. It takes an extraordinarily weak character to be like Marcus or the Buddha.
Clearly Buddha didn't lose his will to live, he lived until 80. Buddha and his disciples didn't lose their vitality either, they were all described as healthy by king Kosala (Middle Discourses 89), and despite abdicating remained engaged. When Nietzsche said the answer to nihilism was either the return of master morality or the rise of a European Buddhism, you'll note the qualifier European, as Nietzsche inherited this fatalistic view from Schopenhauer.
You keep writing about Stoicism and Buddhism, yet the argument is about neither. The argument is these were powerful historical figures who had the same realization as OP, namely on the predication of value. You claimed only the weak were compelled to ask this question (>>236140), yet it's a question that has consumed the greatest monarchs, philosophers, and artists. You have no account for why this is the case.
>>236274
>Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful… you betray your own ancestors who struggled and desired to survive at all costs
Were your ancestors social darwinists? or did they fight for another reason? How will you reconcile this contradiction? Were your ancestors unknowing darwinists?
The view of nature as an open market of individual competition is clearly bourgeois and mercantile, Darwin's thought was a justification for the British India Company as an apex market predator, but in conflating this view with nature itself something becomes apparent that's suspiciously close to the Stoicism you rail against:
>You want to live 'according to nature'? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of a being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative 'live according to nature' meant at bottom the same thing as 'live according to life' - how could you not do that? – Beyond Good and Evil, §9
Like Stoicism, social darwinism it's an imposition on nature to disguise the wills of the participants as the "natural order". It presents itself as democratizing nature according to merit. This isn't an aristocratic view of the world, it's not value-creating, and is partly why Nietzsche despised Stoicism, and would have despised social darwinism, as slave morality. It's no surprise the natural selection of Darwin dovetails with the historical materialism of Marx.
>>236392
>From a classical moral standpoint, maybe. However, morals are fake and hypocrite. Every ideology that preaches about caring for your neighbor and placing the collective before the individual is evil, wicked and rotten.
You claim your opponents are moral nihilists, morally condemn them as wicked, then claim morality doesn't exist. This is three levels of contradiction. Are you a moral nihilist or not? Do you know?
>It's called setting goals. And when you reach those goals you get a small boost in happiness. When you don't you feel saddened.
Precisely. Any boost in happiness is fleeting, and when that changes it produces sadness. In this case the cause of sadness is the impermanence of the happy condition. You may have many things from pursuing goals, but you won't have peace.
There's happiness in having goals and happiness in being goalless, but both are fleeting and therefore produce sadness. This is the vicissitude of life, and it's a conceit to knowingly pile up what you know doesn't really make you happy. As long as we remain ignorant of the causes of our condition, knowingly or not, we will continue to be thrown from one thing to the other.
>>236274
>The study of history is done by multiple individuals who most of the time disagree with each other on almost everything… Aurelius and the Buddha were objectively weak people.
History is certainly open to interpretation. In that case if Roman emperors, pharaohs, sultans, and tsars weren't temporally powerful, who was? If they ruled by the power of their unbreakable wills alone, why were they crowned by priests? Why then appeal to oracles, mystics, augurs, why write laws, treatises, poetry, why commission art, sculpture, buildings? Why does the Byzantine eagle have two heads? One head representing the monarchy, the other the church? Why do kings carry a sword and a scepter? A crook and a flail? Why did Greek and Macedonian generals go to Delphi? Why do knights swear fealty and samurai uphold bushido? Will you carve out exceptions for all these, as examples of weakness, or accept there's a blindspot in your worldview?
>most higher class people, nobles, kings, aristocrats, etc. didn't/don't lose their will to live and their vitality. It takes an extraordinarily weak character to be like Marcus or the Buddha.
Clearly Buddha didn't lose his will to live, he lived until 80. Buddha and his disciples didn't lose their vitality either, they were all described as healthy by king Kosala (Middle Discourses 89), and despite abdicating remained engaged. When Nietzsche said the answer to nihilism was either the return of master morality or the rise of a European Buddhism, you'll note the qualifier European, as Nietzsche inherited this fatalistic view from Schopenhauer.
You keep writing about Stoicism and Buddhism, yet the argument is about neither. The argument is these were powerful historical figures who had the same realization as OP, namely on the predication of value. You claimed only the weak were compelled to ask this question (>>236140), yet it's a question that has consumed the greatest monarchs, philosophers, and artists. You have no account for why this is the case.
>>236274
>Social darwinism should be supported always because it helps us get tougher, stronger, more intelligent and beautiful… you betray your own ancestors who struggled and desired to survive at all costs
Were your ancestors social darwinists? or did they fight for another reason? How will you reconcile this contradiction? Were your ancestors unknowing darwinists?
The view of nature as an open market of individual competition is clearly bourgeois and mercantile, Darwin's thought was a justification for the British India Company as an apex market predator, but in conflating this view with nature itself something becomes apparent that's suspiciously close to the Stoicism you rail against:
>You want to live 'according to nature'? O you noble Stoics, what fraudulent words! Think of a being such as nature is, prodigal beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power - how could you live according to such indifference? To live - is that not precisely wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating, preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And even if your imperative 'live according to nature' meant at bottom the same thing as 'live according to life' - how could you not do that? – Beyond Good and Evil, §9
Like Stoicism, social darwinism it's an imposition on nature to disguise the wills of the participants as the "natural order". It presents itself as democratizing nature according to merit. This isn't an aristocratic view of the world, it's not value-creating, and is partly why Nietzsche despised Stoicism, and would have despised social darwinism, as slave morality. It's no surprise the natural selection of Darwin dovetails with the historical materialism of Marx.
>>236392
>From a classical moral standpoint, maybe. However, morals are fake and hypocrite. Every ideology that preaches about caring for your neighbor and placing the collective before the individual is evil, wicked and rotten.
You claim your opponents are moral nihilists, morally condemn them as wicked, then claim morality doesn't exist. This is three levels of contradiction. Are you a moral nihilist or not? Do you know?
>>236584
I've been thinking about this concept lately. Culture's whole confirmation bias regarding adversity is bizarre. A lot of people that go through adversity (homelessness, jail, poverty, drugs) just end up like shitty, aggressive people that end up getting abused even more by society for being different. So the normgroid's retarded arguments like this I find completely banal
I've been thinking about this concept lately. Culture's whole confirmation bias regarding adversity is bizarre. A lot of people that go through adversity (homelessness, jail, poverty, drugs) just end up like shitty, aggressive people that end up getting abused even more by society for being different. So the normgroid's retarded arguments like this I find completely banal
File: 1613765863708.jpg (401.9 KB, 1920x1200, 8:5, anime_girl_212-1920x1200.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>236543
I didn't say that authority figures were all weak. But there is certainly more to being strong than inheriting a throne from daddy. I said this many times already: having power alone means nothing when you refuse to use it properly. Just like how in christian lore Christ is supposed to be respected because he is God yet he chose to be a weak human too who shared in the sufferings of men out of pity. But this mentality is wrong, power shouldn't be thrown away. Power should be used. Aurelius used power wrongly, because he used it according to a collectivist mindset, he didn't use it for himself but for the ideals of stoicism. And Buddha didn't use his power at all.
>Clearly Buddha didn't lose his will to live etc
Rejecting the will for existence/life is a central tenet of Buddhism. You can live for 200 years yet if you live according to asceticism or other forms of self-denial then you reject the will for existence.
>you have no account for why this is the case
Are you blind or illiterate? I wrote it down many times: they were weak. A strong person full of vitality and the will to power, the will to live doesn't sink into low-vitality states. You seem to rely way too much on the opinion of the many, you instantly accept what they say. You take for granted these "greatest monarchs, philosophers and artists". However, greatness, might, power and strength can be measured in how much a person was full of vitality and how much he embraced life. You can say Schopenhauer or Ligotti are great philosophers but in my eyes they are nothing but pathetic and miserable people, for example.
>Were your ancestors social darwinists?
On some level everyone is, since you can't escape the struggle and competition of life unless you kill yourself. My ancestors obviously struggled, competed, fought and managed to reproduce. They weren't proper social darwinists as far as I know it.
>social darwinism
1. I don't care about open market or whatever but you have to accept that nature inherently prefers the strong. This is objectively true. The strongest reproduces, the strongest survives, the strongest gets the food, the strongest gets the territory, etc. Might makes right is the rule of nature. Denying this is craziness.
2. You mistakenly assume that I'm a nietzschean. I'm not. I like some of his thoughts and ideas and I use some of his definitions but I don't consider him as the ultimate authority. I'm more influenced by social darwinism and anarchism.
3. The stoic view of nature was clearly fake and wrong and has nothing to do with actual nature. The stoics tried to portray man as a purely rational and social animal which we know is delusional. Social darwinism isn't about imposing conceptions onto Nature, it is the opposite. Darwin was an actual scientist who studied Nature more than most people. His conclusions are correct and hold true. Social darwinism is about returning to Nature, my friend. To our original and natural state.
>You claim your opponents are moral nihilists, morally condemn them as wicked, then claim morality doesn't exist. This is three levels of contradiction. Are you a moral nihilist or not? Do you know?
There is no contradiction, this is just wordplays. I don't think I claimed my opponents are moral nihilists, correct me if I'm wrong. I probably meant nihilist in the sense that they don't hold anything worth fighting for.
Now, morality is subjective. Or you could also say that it doesn't exist. It is just playing with the words. Morality is either objective and ultimate or it doesn't exist/is subjective. Whatever you like better.
>>236584
Yes, because only positive and good things define us, obviously!
Think before you write, seriously. Suffering defines us and it is through adversity that we realize who we really are. Your personality and individuality are built around traumas, tragedies and pain too. Without suffering you wouldn't be the same person you are today.
I didn't say that authority figures were all weak. But there is certainly more to being strong than inheriting a throne from daddy. I said this many times already: having power alone means nothing when you refuse to use it properly. Just like how in christian lore Christ is supposed to be respected because he is God yet he chose to be a weak human too who shared in the sufferings of men out of pity. But this mentality is wrong, power shouldn't be thrown away. Power should be used. Aurelius used power wrongly, because he used it according to a collectivist mindset, he didn't use it for himself but for the ideals of stoicism. And Buddha didn't use his power at all.
>Clearly Buddha didn't lose his will to live etc
Rejecting the will for existence/life is a central tenet of Buddhism. You can live for 200 years yet if you live according to asceticism or other forms of self-denial then you reject the will for existence.
>you have no account for why this is the case
Are you blind or illiterate? I wrote it down many times: they were weak. A strong person full of vitality and the will to power, the will to live doesn't sink into low-vitality states. You seem to rely way too much on the opinion of the many, you instantly accept what they say. You take for granted these "greatest monarchs, philosophers and artists". However, greatness, might, power and strength can be measured in how much a person was full of vitality and how much he embraced life. You can say Schopenhauer or Ligotti are great philosophers but in my eyes they are nothing but pathetic and miserable people, for example.
>Were your ancestors social darwinists?
On some level everyone is, since you can't escape the struggle and competition of life unless you kill yourself. My ancestors obviously struggled, competed, fought and managed to reproduce. They weren't proper social darwinists as far as I know it.
>social darwinism
1. I don't care about open market or whatever but you have to accept that nature inherently prefers the strong. This is objectively true. The strongest reproduces, the strongest survives, the strongest gets the food, the strongest gets the territory, etc. Might makes right is the rule of nature. Denying this is craziness.
2. You mistakenly assume that I'm a nietzschean. I'm not. I like some of his thoughts and ideas and I use some of his definitions but I don't consider him as the ultimate authority. I'm more influenced by social darwinism and anarchism.
3. The stoic view of nature was clearly fake and wrong and has nothing to do with actual nature. The stoics tried to portray man as a purely rational and social animal which we know is delusional. Social darwinism isn't about imposing conceptions onto Nature, it is the opposite. Darwin was an actual scientist who studied Nature more than most people. His conclusions are correct and hold true. Social darwinism is about returning to Nature, my friend. To our original and natural state.
>You claim your opponents are moral nihilists, morally condemn them as wicked, then claim morality doesn't exist. This is three levels of contradiction. Are you a moral nihilist or not? Do you know?
There is no contradiction, this is just wordplays. I don't think I claimed my opponents are moral nihilists, correct me if I'm wrong. I probably meant nihilist in the sense that they don't hold anything worth fighting for.
Now, morality is subjective. Or you could also say that it doesn't exist. It is just playing with the words. Morality is either objective and ultimate or it doesn't exist/is subjective. Whatever you like better.
>>236584
Yes, because only positive and good things define us, obviously!
Think before you write, seriously. Suffering defines us and it is through adversity that we realize who we really are. Your personality and individuality are built around traumas, tragedies and pain too. Without suffering you wouldn't be the same person you are today.
>>235221
I'm interested in your argument, Wiz, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps you can respond to my objections? As I understand it, contrary to your premise, "death" is not a state of non-existence. Death is a state that we ascribe to an existing thing. An organism that is alive one day may be dead the next but it exists throughout. Secondly, I do not understand why if death were real, it would necessarily happen for the shortest amount of time possible. Could time not cease altogether? You argue that because death has a beginning it must have an end, but I do not see why this follows.
I'm interested in your argument, Wiz, but I am not yet convinced. Perhaps you can respond to my objections? As I understand it, contrary to your premise, "death" is not a state of non-existence. Death is a state that we ascribe to an existing thing. An organism that is alive one day may be dead the next but it exists throughout. Secondly, I do not understand why if death were real, it would necessarily happen for the shortest amount of time possible. Could time not cease altogether? You argue that because death has a beginning it must have an end, but I do not see why this follows.
>>236771
Or a realist, rather. We had this idealistic stupidity ruining cultures and destroying master morals both in the West (Plato and Christianity) and in the East (Jainism, Buddhism, etc).
You need to clear your head and ask objectively from yourself "how does this world work?"
I tell you a little secret, life is possible not despite of evil but thanks to the existence of what most would consider as evil.
How do you think Christianity survived for this long, for example? Certainly not by strictly obeying the love your enemies and don't fight evil motto. Monks of Jainism while being strictly against violence in all situations still allow violence when it comes to protecting their nuns. Turn the other cheek and pacifism generally isn't a road that can be walked by anyone who wishes to live.
Or a realist, rather. We had this idealistic stupidity ruining cultures and destroying master morals both in the West (Plato and Christianity) and in the East (Jainism, Buddhism, etc).
You need to clear your head and ask objectively from yourself "how does this world work?"
I tell you a little secret, life is possible not despite of evil but thanks to the existence of what most would consider as evil.
How do you think Christianity survived for this long, for example? Certainly not by strictly obeying the love your enemies and don't fight evil motto. Monks of Jainism while being strictly against violence in all situations still allow violence when it comes to protecting their nuns. Turn the other cheek and pacifism generally isn't a road that can be walked by anyone who wishes to live.
>>236784
literally how is self defense evil? i guess thats what the public school system gets you believing after all the years youre in there.
anyway so let me tell you about a story from the bible. jesus and the gang are walking around and they get to a river. theres a bridge there and romans are guarding it and you have to pay to cross it. so this guy asks jesus what to do and jesus tells him to pay the toll as to not unnecessarily offend them. in other words it wouldnt win many converts chimping out over a bridge toll so they let it slide. now when it comes to turning the other cheek am i going to turn the other cheek for a nigger thug robbing me? no. hes going to learn literally nothing and continue on with his nigger ways. i will have won 0 converts and lost some cash.
on a side note christianity has survived this long because its only open to those with understanding. it can be hidden away in things like catholicism and then when someone with understanding comes along they can bring christianity back and preach it with the same book the catholics are using.
literally how is self defense evil? i guess thats what the public school system gets you believing after all the years youre in there.
anyway so let me tell you about a story from the bible. jesus and the gang are walking around and they get to a river. theres a bridge there and romans are guarding it and you have to pay to cross it. so this guy asks jesus what to do and jesus tells him to pay the toll as to not unnecessarily offend them. in other words it wouldnt win many converts chimping out over a bridge toll so they let it slide. now when it comes to turning the other cheek am i going to turn the other cheek for a nigger thug robbing me? no. hes going to learn literally nothing and continue on with his nigger ways. i will have won 0 converts and lost some cash.
on a side note christianity has survived this long because its only open to those with understanding. it can be hidden away in things like catholicism and then when someone with understanding comes along they can bring christianity back and preach it with the same book the catholics are using.
>>236795
Oh, enlighten me. How does conflict, war and fighting back fit in with someone who even asked forgiveness for the ones who killed him? Or with Paul who explicitly told his followers to avoid any conflict?
Pacifism and turn the other cheek is the essence of Christianity, no matter what anybody tries to tell you. Just read the gospels.
>>236801
Self defense is evil according to some slave morals. Like Christianity and some eastern religions, for example. Again, you can explain why self-defense is rational and good but Christ advocated against every kind of violence so don't call yourself a christian.
"Christianity" survived this long because christians ignored and disobeyed their own teachings most of the time. That is also the reason why they kept the Old Testament - so they could cite passages and parts encouraging war, violence and similar things.
Oh, enlighten me. How does conflict, war and fighting back fit in with someone who even asked forgiveness for the ones who killed him? Or with Paul who explicitly told his followers to avoid any conflict?
Pacifism and turn the other cheek is the essence of Christianity, no matter what anybody tries to tell you. Just read the gospels.
>>236801
Self defense is evil according to some slave morals. Like Christianity and some eastern religions, for example. Again, you can explain why self-defense is rational and good but Christ advocated against every kind of violence so don't call yourself a christian.
"Christianity" survived this long because christians ignored and disobeyed their own teachings most of the time. That is also the reason why they kept the Old Testament - so they could cite passages and parts encouraging war, violence and similar things.
>>236830
>Christ advocated against every kind of violence
yeah sure, the same guy who got a whip and started going at money changers at the temple.
>"Christianity" survived this long because christians ignored and disobeyed their own teachings most of the time
thats what i said, christianity is only open to those with understanding. fake christians have been propagating their version while the real stuff is still in the bible, but only some can see it. and it wouldnt even matter if the bible was erased off of the face of the earth, the truths within it would still exist, it would just be hard to write them all down again.
>Christ advocated against every kind of violence
yeah sure, the same guy who got a whip and started going at money changers at the temple.
>"Christianity" survived this long because christians ignored and disobeyed their own teachings most of the time
thats what i said, christianity is only open to those with understanding. fake christians have been propagating their version while the real stuff is still in the bible, but only some can see it. and it wouldnt even matter if the bible was erased off of the face of the earth, the truths within it would still exist, it would just be hard to write them all down again.
>>236831
>yeah sure, the same guy who got a whip and started going at money changers at the temple.
So he went against his own teaching? Not surprising, most philosophers, artists, thinkers and founders of religions fall into this problem quite a lot. He even told in one of his speeches how people should obey what the pharisees teach yet his entire work is a disobediance of their teachings. Quite interesting. Seems like hypocrisy is a natural companion of christianity.
>yeah sure, the same guy who got a whip and started going at money changers at the temple.
So he went against his own teaching? Not surprising, most philosophers, artists, thinkers and founders of religions fall into this problem quite a lot. He even told in one of his speeches how people should obey what the pharisees teach yet his entire work is a disobediance of their teachings. Quite interesting. Seems like hypocrisy is a natural companion of christianity.
>>235149
Well in my opinion there is no point to it,but what can you do?There is two options either kill yourself if you can or try to make your existence as sufferable as possible until you die.
Well in my opinion there is no point to it,but what can you do?There is two options either kill yourself if you can or try to make your existence as sufferable as possible until you die.
>>238284
I'm currently doing the latter. Spending all my savings ($8k or so) making my apartment look as nice as possible. Best wallpapers, oriental carpets, antiques, wall paneling etc. I can find.
I'm currently doing the latter. Spending all my savings ($8k or so) making my apartment look as nice as possible. Best wallpapers, oriental carpets, antiques, wall paneling etc. I can find.
>>236274
>taking up the precious place and having the precious resources
this is probably the longest running deception throughout history
>taking up the precious place and having the precious resources
this is probably the longest running deception throughout history
You didn't exist 100 years ago, yet you came forth out of that nothingness. What's the difference between the nothingness before your birth and the nothingness after your death?
>>238763
There was never a true nothingness. Our fundamental essence is indestructible, and it is shared with all things which exist in the phenomenal world.
There was never a true nothingness. Our fundamental essence is indestructible, and it is shared with all things which exist in the phenomenal world.
>walk into philosophy related thread
>it's the "anime pseudo-intellectuals having nonsense conversation" episode again
Why is it ALWAYS anime posters? Ban anime.
>>235149
Nothing matters because you die, interesting. So if we die, nothing matters, if we live, also nothing matters. If the choice has no differential, then the default option is automatically chosen right? But you say "nothing is worth doing in life, no goal can justify the pain and suffering of working to achieve it", so goals cause suffering - the obvious answer is to not have goals then? Sit on your butt doing nothing at all! All the while trying not to make a goal of sitting on your ass of couse. Anyways naturally you will become bored of that, and then decide to create some kind of goal. So in a choice between suffering for a goal (however inconsequential that goal is, such as spending more time on wizchan) or boredom, you choose to suffer. Is boredom a type of suffering as well? I suppose I might say so, so really it was just a question of suffering or suffering less. Which to me sounds like a decent answer to "What even is the point in doing anything?", suffering less certainly sounds correct, if your goal is exactly that which it certainly sounds like.
Perhaps you might next ask; well why should I continue to pick lesser suffering at all vs non existence and its total lack of suffering? A fine question and certainly harder than the one you purpose in the OP. One might just say you prefer suffering over not suffering, or rather you prefer even slight moments of happiness over nothing at all. Besides, what does your suffering matter, you will die and return to non existence anyways right? Death now, or death later, you yourself state it to be of no consequence. That I suppose is the answer, that you might as well stay with the default choice unless pushed in one direction.
>it's the "anime pseudo-intellectuals having nonsense conversation" episode again
Why is it ALWAYS anime posters? Ban anime.
>>235149
Nothing matters because you die, interesting. So if we die, nothing matters, if we live, also nothing matters. If the choice has no differential, then the default option is automatically chosen right? But you say "nothing is worth doing in life, no goal can justify the pain and suffering of working to achieve it", so goals cause suffering - the obvious answer is to not have goals then? Sit on your butt doing nothing at all! All the while trying not to make a goal of sitting on your ass of couse. Anyways naturally you will become bored of that, and then decide to create some kind of goal. So in a choice between suffering for a goal (however inconsequential that goal is, such as spending more time on wizchan) or boredom, you choose to suffer. Is boredom a type of suffering as well? I suppose I might say so, so really it was just a question of suffering or suffering less. Which to me sounds like a decent answer to "What even is the point in doing anything?", suffering less certainly sounds correct, if your goal is exactly that which it certainly sounds like.
Perhaps you might next ask; well why should I continue to pick lesser suffering at all vs non existence and its total lack of suffering? A fine question and certainly harder than the one you purpose in the OP. One might just say you prefer suffering over not suffering, or rather you prefer even slight moments of happiness over nothing at all. Besides, what does your suffering matter, you will die and return to non existence anyways right? Death now, or death later, you yourself state it to be of no consequence. That I suppose is the answer, that you might as well stay with the default choice unless pushed in one direction.
Things do matter when we are alive. That's the main quality of being alive that things matter to us whether we want to or not. If they did not we weren't having this conversation, suffering wouldn't exist and we couldn't be self aware. We don't know whether things still matter after we die as in it's uncertain how consciousness works after dieing. But there obviously is a legit argument to make in favor of death once we come to the conclusion that the things that matter to us in life - including things that matter beyond our control and against our will but that we cannot simply turn off - are not worth it to endure suffering, are very hostile and bad to us so that we take the chance to get out of the default option of life before we let it run out by its natural process.
>>238779
I do think you are unfair to yourself and me when you state nothing matters due to death, but that things matter while alive. Either they matter, or they don't, but I do understand what you mean since your argument is not in a strictly "logical debate" fashion, but one that you have with yourself and becomes rather confusing out in the open.
Anyways as for you post, that is why I put "unless pushed in one direction." in mine. Personally I take the stoics's viewpoint of suicide, as Epictetus put it “Has someone made smoke in the house? If it is moderate, I’ll stay. If too much, I exit. For you must always remember and hold fast to this, that the door is open.”. There is at the end of the day only a subjective interpretation of reality, which decides if living is worthwhile or not. If you believe life to merely be suffering and nothing else, while also believing that suffering worthy enough for suicide, then exit as soon as you can. That is the only proper response, and there is nothing wrong with that unless you believe in magical gods writing down rules against suicide.
Perhaps this sounds like a very simple answer, or even self evident that if you believe life not to be worth living you would not live. My answer to that, is simply to say that is why it is probably true and worth thinking about. After all I cannot magically convince you that life is not suffering, nor would I since it very well might be. All that "matters" is if you believe it to be, and what action you will take afterwards.
I do think you are unfair to yourself and me when you state nothing matters due to death, but that things matter while alive. Either they matter, or they don't, but I do understand what you mean since your argument is not in a strictly "logical debate" fashion, but one that you have with yourself and becomes rather confusing out in the open.
Anyways as for you post, that is why I put "unless pushed in one direction." in mine. Personally I take the stoics's viewpoint of suicide, as Epictetus put it “Has someone made smoke in the house? If it is moderate, I’ll stay. If too much, I exit. For you must always remember and hold fast to this, that the door is open.”. There is at the end of the day only a subjective interpretation of reality, which decides if living is worthwhile or not. If you believe life to merely be suffering and nothing else, while also believing that suffering worthy enough for suicide, then exit as soon as you can. That is the only proper response, and there is nothing wrong with that unless you believe in magical gods writing down rules against suicide.
Perhaps this sounds like a very simple answer, or even self evident that if you believe life not to be worth living you would not live. My answer to that, is simply to say that is why it is probably true and worth thinking about. After all I cannot magically convince you that life is not suffering, nor would I since it very well might be. All that "matters" is if you believe it to be, and what action you will take afterwards.
You know I wonder. We all say that nothing matters because we die. So let's suppose we don't die. We live eternally. Does everything starts to matter now? I assume that any activity in life is pointless because how short it is. But what if you were to live 1000 years? You would start doing anything that requires more effort or on the other hand be overwhelmed by the length of it and amount of suffering and immediately suicide?
You see death is not really a problem at all, in fact it is kind of a bliss because we have no idea what's after it. Every beliefs are just assumptions and have no proof whatsoever. So in this case ignorance is a bliss and we can choose what we want after death. Perhaps our situation after life is individual and based on our presumptions.
What I would be more disturbed about is not the point of activity but mere existence. I think of it this way. Let's say you're in the jungle, you eat bananas, drink water from the river and make structures from mud and wood. You might say that purpose of banana is to feed you, river to give you a drink etc. But what about a mountain? A mountaineer would say it's purpose is to climb it. What about Earth? The Sun? Milky Way and universe?
You see purpose is helpful when it comes to basic survival because it helps to set goals that keep us alive. Why do we create computer simulations? Just for our enjoyment? Because we don't have anything better to do? You could ask the same question to God. And either we are too simple-minded to understand the answer or there might be no God at all and purpose might be a result of our limited brains. Does a rock think about purpose of things? Maybe we shouldn't think at all?
We are but a conscious, breathing rocks that are a mistake or we are a part of a God's plan that we are unable to understand.
You see death is not really a problem at all, in fact it is kind of a bliss because we have no idea what's after it. Every beliefs are just assumptions and have no proof whatsoever. So in this case ignorance is a bliss and we can choose what we want after death. Perhaps our situation after life is individual and based on our presumptions.
What I would be more disturbed about is not the point of activity but mere existence. I think of it this way. Let's say you're in the jungle, you eat bananas, drink water from the river and make structures from mud and wood. You might say that purpose of banana is to feed you, river to give you a drink etc. But what about a mountain? A mountaineer would say it's purpose is to climb it. What about Earth? The Sun? Milky Way and universe?
You see purpose is helpful when it comes to basic survival because it helps to set goals that keep us alive. Why do we create computer simulations? Just for our enjoyment? Because we don't have anything better to do? You could ask the same question to God. And either we are too simple-minded to understand the answer or there might be no God at all and purpose might be a result of our limited brains. Does a rock think about purpose of things? Maybe we shouldn't think at all?
We are but a conscious, breathing rocks that are a mistake or we are a part of a God's plan that we are unable to understand.
When you become adult things lost his special aura you know that everything is rigged you know how succubus truly are you know you will not be rich so you lost all motivation
File: 1621259771199.jpg (69.83 KB, 750x792, 125:132, 1621163733240.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>235947
Not him but I believed what OP believed for the longest time until a year ago I've began to fear that he may be right.
Determinism is certainly true. We are the products of cause-and-effect and there is no room for freedom, not even in our conscious experiences. Our lives and deaths were determined before we were even born.
Accepting that, where do you think the big bang originated from? What happened before it? Surely more big bangs had to have existed. Big Crunch is not necessary for eternal return, there are other avenues for it such as quantum fluctuations at the planck length or a multiverse that continuously spits out more universes.
Keep in mind that the universe/multiverse is a cold and callous machine with absolutely no regards for our well-being in any way, shape, or form. Hypothetically, if the laws of physicals allowed it, it would torture us for all eternally without the slightest pity. It's a machine that cannot be stopped or reasoned with.
It's pure evil and infinitely unfair, but I just can't see how it could be wrong. Oh how I wish it were wrong…
Not him but I believed what OP believed for the longest time until a year ago I've began to fear that he may be right.
Determinism is certainly true. We are the products of cause-and-effect and there is no room for freedom, not even in our conscious experiences. Our lives and deaths were determined before we were even born.
Accepting that, where do you think the big bang originated from? What happened before it? Surely more big bangs had to have existed. Big Crunch is not necessary for eternal return, there are other avenues for it such as quantum fluctuations at the planck length or a multiverse that continuously spits out more universes.
Keep in mind that the universe/multiverse is a cold and callous machine with absolutely no regards for our well-being in any way, shape, or form. Hypothetically, if the laws of physicals allowed it, it would torture us for all eternally without the slightest pity. It's a machine that cannot be stopped or reasoned with.
It's pure evil and infinitely unfair, but I just can't see how it could be wrong. Oh how I wish it were wrong…
>>238248
You being too low IQ to interpret the rules correctly does not make them contradictory
You being too low IQ to interpret the rules correctly does not make them contradictory
>>238807
>there might be no God at all and purpose might be a result of our limited brains.
Yes this. Definitely this.
>there might be no God at all and purpose might be a result of our limited brains.
Yes this. Definitely this.
File: 1623392767219.jpeg (132.78 KB, 1000x750, 4:3, sVDgKYpc0soFBjrgZw0yLQ.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb
>>240115
That's why i believe in gnosticism and read Miguel Serrano. We should be living in pleroma, not here.
That's why i believe in gnosticism and read Miguel Serrano. We should be living in pleroma, not here.
[Last 50 Posts]