/lit/ - Literature

>being forgetful about the approaching extinction event

You'd best gain some perspective.

>>4313432
This.

>zeus the god child is playing with his dice
>e-explain yourself

Well that's just how he rolls, innit? What's so default about nothing rather than something to the degree that something has to justify itself?

Seeing as he left very little written information behind, where can I learn about the "weeping philosopher" Heraclitus?

Leatherbound 19th century edition of Heraclitus' fragments in Greek. Nothing else. This is your Bible. Be brooding Byronic hero in expensive impeccable but understated clothes and be well groomed without being a dandy. With subtle remarks create the suspicion that you have created out of your Heraclitan texts a highly complex, idiosyncratic but well rounded philosophy of which they can only catch a glimpse sometimes. Remain above all the Obscure One.

"Create. Destroy. Repeat."
-- Heraclitus

Heraclitus, bitches.

>>3495731
>And THIS is quite possibly the most horrifying vision of the future I've read on 4chan.
Thanks.

The problem is though, all those peoples you mentioned got their shit handed to them because Takers as you call them, while ultimately self-destructive, destroy the competition first. The problem with primitivist ideals is the same as those of anarchist ideals and the like: It doesn't account for the overcoming of outside threats.

Also, I don't think those tribes you mention are in any way noble, I just think they just aren't as good as raping the world as us but would do the same if they could. I see no noble savage in the Aboriginals, for example. Those peoples are less harmful to the earth just like a baby bear is less dangerous than a grown one. Just because it do damage doesn't mean it doesn't would if it could.

I think 'taker' culture is here to stay and that the tide of rises and crashes of our technologically augmented planet rape is here to stay for as long as humanity is. Hell, we can barely wait to rape other planets. It's just how we roll. I don't really mind it though. It's nice and Heraclitean.

Life, as a general phenomenon, is cannibalistic. It's constantly devouring itself. To live is to kill. Even the gentlest of organisms devour other organisms to stay alive. Your body is at this very fighting of a siege of organisms, killing them to the best of it's ability.

So is killing wrong? No, killing is living and living is killing. Is causing suffering wrong, then? Some might say so, but we all cause suffering in tremendous ways. The keyboard I'm touching now was made by factory workers who toil for 12 hours a day and live in shitty basement rooms without sunlight. The coffee I'm drinking was provided by nearly destitute farmers. The clothes on my back are made by children in Bangladesh. To thrive is to cause suffering. The shooting of a deer is relatively innocent. It's doing it's deery things, then there is a sound, then there is nothing. If you're morally inclined you should be worrying about how our general luxureous way of life is a perpetual tyranny held up on the strained backs of the rest of the world. Killing animals for pleisure is such a small and trivial phenomenon compared to our other wrongs that it would be irrational to focus on it.

I'd rather embrace the basic nature of life though and live with a clear conscience instead of trying to force it's most basic mechanisms to adhere to fictional absolutes.

>>2921192
>He did charge for his teaching did he not.

He did not. He despised his fellow man and didn't want anything to do with them even when they called upon him in political manners. He rather sat around playing games with the children. Afterwards he went into the mountains and lived on what he gathered, away from society.

He was the real deal.

>>2782301
Someone who has thought it out to it's logical end. Nice.

Salut.

>>2771863
A relation is per definition "that which relates", in the same way that the rain is the raining itself. Verbs and nouns are interchangeable.

In fact, I'd say that nouns are an illusion. Everything is verb. Everything is flux, constantly changing. The whole world is doing, becoming, but never being. A great example if this is the term "it is raining". There is nothing doing the raining, but having an actor is just our grammatical convention. Therefore we use the nondescriptive "it", to keep to our grammatical conventions.

Another example would be the shining of light. There is no light apart from the shining. The term light merely means "that which shines", which is the shining itself. A fist is not an object, it is a noun to describe a clenching of the hand. Going even further the hand is not an object, it is a noun describing a certain doing of the cells. And even cells or matter itself aren't objects, they are just objectified energy, energy which itself is dynamic, in flux, doing.

Actor and act are one and the same. In that way there are no "human beings", just "human doings". Everything happens, but nothing is.

>>2761125
The thought of philosophy or history or anything ending is shitty Hegelianism. The idea is so ridiculous that it is probably a good sign that it has never occurred to you in a serious way.

"Ending" is merely a shitty concept which describes "changing beyond recognition". There's no such things as endings. We all flux.

>>2723481
Everything changes all the time. Man doesn't have a nature as in posession, he is a certain way which he simply is. So the nature of a man can't change in itself, the specific man changes and what he is is synonymous to his nature.

>>2645860
>brought into existence
>went from a state of nonexistence to a sentient being
> given the gift of being able to ponder over and interact
>grants such opportunities
> precious this gift
>people who are grateful for a rare shot at life

Seriously? The is nothing that is brought into existence, there is no unexisting soul that was waiting for a slot to be available. He is a part of existence, the very existing defines. There is no him besides his existence. Therefore being grateful for it would be absurd. He couldn't have been anything else, he didn't get the good or the bad side of the deal. Non-existence doesn't exist and is irrelevant.

There is no gift either for this same reason. No opportunities granted, as if he could have been who he is in another situation. There is no gift, just like a fish isn't being gifted being a fish as if he could NOT have been a fish. Gratefulness for your existence as it is, which could not be any other way than that it is, is as ridiculous as complaining about it.

Always be weary of those who try to frame the flux.

So life gravitates towards an absence of struggle?

>>2588638
>Is it?

Well, unless I could change to want what I want. But then I would have to want to want something else. And how can I know I want that out of free will? Regressus ad infinitum or something like that.

I lthink the notion that life is spontaneous makes sense, with no-one at the wheel. Call it chaos, if you want. Or Heraclitus' fire. Or the Tao if you want to get shit from people for being a hipster.

>>2550963
I meant that they are compatible with scientific findings and evolution theory in the sense that they don't contradict it.

For example, there are religious and philosophical doctrines that claim that humans poses some sort of basic goodness. That empathy is an underlying trait that will flourish if one removes certain layers of human thought and activity. This sort of ideology conflicts with information we have about the make up of both humans and our closest primate relatives as well as most other organisms. It could be said that a certain conflict is part of the normal state of things, since we can see it on every level. Trees struggling for sunlight and doing this blocking out light for the lower specimens, baby sharks rivalling each other in the womb, the cells in your very body combating each other as we speak. These are all observations that can harmoniously coexist with Nietzschean values, whereas many other sets of values are directly contradicting the state of things and cause disharmony between it's adherents and the rest of existence, thereby leading to decadence, decay, weakness and eventually the dismissing and extinguising of life itself. Ideals that oppose natural phenomena and laws if nature if I may say so eventually become crippled. Ideals that compliment nature instead of oppose it flourish.

I agree that Nietzsche beckons back to the ancient concept of virtue, but not merely in a classicist reconstructionist sort of ways. Nietzsche wasn't very concerned with the polis. These times call for a wholly different view of life than the ancient Greeks used to adhere too. Except for that glorious old sage Heraclitus maybe.

What is the primary difference between the views of the Socratics and the pre-Socratics?

Πάντα ῥεῖ καὶ οὐδὲν μένει