[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]

/dep/ - Depression

Depression
Email
Comment

File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]   [Archive]

File: 1611438268983.jpg (177.54 KB, 1080x841, 1080:841, u0xeidhgl3a61.jpg) ImgOps iqdb

 No.235149[View All]

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?
82 posts and 9 image replies omitted. Click reply to view.

 No.236262

>>236261
I don't think anyone is here because they find it fulfilling, honestly…

 No.236263

>>236261
It's just a cope.

 No.236264

>>236263
Unironically, what's the difference?

 No.236265

>>236264
The difference is the gay lingo he just used

 No.236274

>>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.

 No.236275

>>235157
>enjoy
>life

 No.236277

>>236274
so much word gymnastics from a microbe living for 2 seconds on a grain of sand in an ocean of nothing

 No.236278

>>236274
One day you will grow old, contract all kinds of diseases, and die in your deathbed whilst shitting yourself. Fits my description of "broken" quite well.Take your retarded larping and fuck off.

>>236277
Preach

 No.236282

>>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.

 No.236392

>>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.

 No.236406

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.

 No.236412

>>236392
> it is beautiful exactly because suffering exists

Beauty doesn't make up for shit.

 No.236451

>>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.

 No.236471

>>236451
Go back to reddit where you came from.

 No.236482

>>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?

 No.236518

>>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.

 No.236543

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?

 No.236584

>>236518
Suffering doesnt build character, thats just idealized nonsense.

 No.236601

>>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

 No.236606

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.

 No.236665

>>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.

 No.236771

>>236274
>We can't exist without competition and selfishness
sounds like something satan would say

 No.236784

>>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.

 No.236795

>>236784
>Turn the other cheek and pacifism
You do not understand Christianity.

 No.236801

>>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.

 No.236830

>>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.

 No.236831

>>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.

 No.238247

>>236274
gigantic cope

 No.238248

>>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.

 No.238284

>>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.

 No.238521

>>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.

 No.238762

>>236274
>taking up the precious place and having the precious resources
this is probably the longest running deception throughout history

 No.238763

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?

 No.238766

>>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.

 No.238768

"Yall" should be spelled Y'all

 No.238776

>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.

 No.238779

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.

 No.238780

>>238779
In response to >>238776

 No.238791

>>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.

 No.238807

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.

 No.238831

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

 No.238853

>>238807
Nice post, I'll be borrowing a few things you said in my worldview.

 No.238920

>>238807
Not half bad, wiz. Not half bad.

 No.240115

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…

 No.240118

>>238248
You being too low IQ to interpret the rules correctly does not make them contradictory

 No.240123

>>240118
If I were low IQ I would be a pious christfag.

 No.240129

>>238807
>there might be no God at all and purpose might be a result of our limited brains.

Yes this. Definitely this.

 No.241631

>>235881
Well put

 No.241632

>>235881
Well put

 No.241634

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.


[View All]
[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ Home ] [ wiz / dep / hob / lounge / jp / meta / games / music ] [ all ] [  Rules ] [  FAQ ] [  Search /  History ] [  Textboard ] [  Wiki ]